Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bill (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Friday.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

BRITISH NAVAL VESSELS.

Mr. KELLY: 1.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what vessels of the yardcraft service are engaged in connection with the operations at Shanghai?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): No vessels of the yardcraft service are, or have been, employed at Shanghai.

SECTION A, ARMY RESERVE.

Mr. STEPHEN: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for War, if it is the intention of the Government to retain men of Section A of the Army Reserve now on service in China for a longer period than 12 months, or if the conditions of Army Order No. 58, of 28th February, 1925, will be observed?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): The conditions of the Army Order quoted will be observed.

BOOT AND SHOE INDUSTRY (NATIONAL AGREEMENT).

Colonel DAY: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour if he has received an application from the Joint Industrial Council, representing manufacturers and opera
tives in the boot and shoe industry, asking him to consider the question of the legalisation of national agreements so as to give the national agreement of this industry the same effect as that given to Trade Board awards; and what action his Department proposes to take in the matter?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): A deputation was received yesterday from the Association of Joint Industrial Councils and Interim Industrial Reconstruction Committees, of which the Boot and Shoe Trade Joint Industrial Council is a member, and I am giving careful consideration to the views they expressed on the subject of the compulsory extension of Joint Industrial Council decisions. I would add that, as the hon. Member is probably aware, the wages agreements in the boot and shoe industry are not made by the Joint Industrial Council for the industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

ELLAND.

Mr. ROBINSON: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed in the Elland Division in January, 1914, 1924, 1925, 1926, and 1927, respectively; and whether any schemes for providing work for the unemployed in the division are under consideration?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Statistics are available only in respect of the Employment Exchange at Brighouse and branch offices at Elland and Greetland. The numbers of persons on the registers at these offices were 2,525 at 5th January, 1924; 3,002 at 5th January, 1925; 2,529 at 4th January, 1926, and 3,407 at 3rd January, 1927. There are no comparable figures for January, 1914. No application has been made recently to the Unemployment Grants Committee by any local authority in the area covered by the offices named for a grant-in-aid of a proposed scheme of work for the relief of unemployment.

STATISTICS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the present number of persons registered as unemployed; whether he has any
estimate of the number of persons working short time; and whether he has any figures showing the number of persons out of employment but not on the unemployment register and refused extended benefit?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At 19th April, the number of persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain was 1,106,400 of whom 337,100 were temporarily stopped from the service of their employers. I cannot give an estimate of the number of short-time workers not on the registers, nor have I any figures showing the number of unemployed persons refused extended benefit who are not included in the register figures.

GLOVE WORKERS, YEOVIL.

Mr. KELLY: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour why dependants' allowance is refused to unemployed glove workers in Yeovil when it is proved that an amount of less than 10s. per week is received by their wives as glove out-workers?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The Unemployment Insurance Acts do not permit of the payment of dependants' benefit in respect of any dependant who is engaged in an occupation ordinarily carried on for profit, no matter what the amount of the profit may be per week.

Mr. KELLY: Are we to understand that even if the amount is less than 10s. a week, dependants' allowances are still refused?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That, understand, is the case under the Act as it stands.

Major G. DAVIES: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if it had not been for the Safeguarding of Industries Act, the number of unemployed there would have been greater?

DRIED FRUIT INDUSTRY (WAGES AND HOURS).

Mr. JOHNSTON: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give the basic rate of wages and hours of labour worked by boys, girls and adults, respectively, in the dried fruit industry in Australia, Greece, Turkey and California?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I regret that the Ministry of Labour has no information as to the wages or hours of labour of workpeople in the dried fruit industry in these countries.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Has not the right hon. Gentleman the rates of wages and hours of labour in the dried fruit industry in Australia, seeing that they have already been published?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not aware that I have them in my possession. If they have been published, I have no doubt I could obtain them for the hon. Gentleman.

PACIFIC AIR FLIGHT.

Colonel DAY: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether any material or equipment belonging to the Royal Air Force will be used in the Pacific flight from Vancouver, Canada, to Australia; whether the two British pilots making this flight are officers of the Royal Air Force; and what the official stopping places during this flight will be and the distance between them?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the negative. As regards the last part, I have no information regarding this flight, which is, I presume, being privately organised.

AIR TRAFFIC AGREEMENT (GERMANY).

Captain GARRO-JONES: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the negotiations with Germany for a mutual air traffic agreement have yet been concluded; and when they will be published?

Sir P. SASSOON: Good progress has been made in the negotiations for the agreement, which I hope that it will now be possible to sign at an early date.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will this agreement include the right of our aeroplanes to fly over German territory on the way to Prague?

Sir P. SASSOON: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will wait and see the
agreement, which will be signed very shortly.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Baronet aware that it is not a question of waiting and seeing. We have been waiting for three years to get this very important British line started, and it has been held up by Germany.

Sir P. SASSOON: This agreement does not depend only on one party.

OFFICE OF WORKS (EMPLOYES).

Mr. ROBINSON: 11.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, the number of persons in the Department engaged on clerical work of a permanent character who are classed as temporary civil servants; and the number of men on manual labour, with the number that hold established appointments and the number that are un-established?

Captain KING: (for The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): The total number of persons in the Department engaged on clerical work who are classed as temporary civil servants is 154, but it is impossible to say at present what proportion of this work (if any) will prove to be permanent; the number of men on manual labour proper is 2,552, all un-established.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

BOMBAY COTTON MILLS (WAGES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 12.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the average weekly wages, reduced to sterling at the present rate of exchange, of men, women, and children, respectively, in the Bombay cotton mills?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The latest information is contained in a report by the Bombay Labour Office published in 1925. This showed that in August, 1923, the average daily earnings
in the Bombay Presidency were as follow:




 Rs.
as.
p.


Men
…
1
5
9


Women
…
0
11
7


Big lads and children
…
0
11
4

The average weekly earnings for a full working week of six days would accordingly be:






Sterling equivalent



Rs.
as.
p.
s.
d.


Men
8
2
6
12
2¾


Women
4
5
6
6
6¼


Big lads and children
4
4
0
6
4½

The figures exclude overtime pay and all remuneration in the form of grain or clothing or accommodation below market prices or rentals.

MEDICAL SERVICE (PASSAGE CONCESSIONS).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 13.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether a decision has now been reached as to granting passage concessions to Indian officers who entered the Indian Medical Service by competitive examination in London?

Earl WINTERTON: Yes, Sir. The Government of India are issuing a statement, the substance of which I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

My Noble Friend has decided that all officers of the Indian Medical Service, including those of Asiatic domiciles, shall be required before promotion to the rank of major to complete the Senior Officers' Course at the Royal Army Medical College, Millbank. Attendance at this course will count as duty and carry with it free passages to and from the United Kingdom.

Officers of the Indian Medical Service of Asiatic domicile will, immediately after completing this course, be regarded as eligible for a period of study leave, during which they will retain a lien on their free return passage to India.

Those officers of Asiatic domicile now on service who by reason of their age are disqualified from attending the Senior Officers' Course will be eligible once during their service for a free passage to England and back when proceeding on study leave.

The Government of India have, however, not found it possible to give full effect to the scheme in the present financial year.

RAW FRUIT (IMPORTS).

Colonel WOODCOCK: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of raw fruit imported for the years 1925 and 1926; and what proportion of this amount was imported from Empire sources?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): The value of raw fruit (other than nuts used as fruit) imported into the United Kingdom in 1925 was £28,934,000, and in 1926, £31,170,000. The proportion consigned from British countries was 26.1 per cent. in 1925, and 26.7 per cent. in 1926.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Does not the hon. Gentleman think the difference in the proportions is very great, and that there could be a decrease in the ratio of foreign to Empire fruit?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I do not know what the Board of Trade can do. These matters work themselves out in the processes of trade.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that most of this fruit comes from the Continent which is not British territory, and nothing can prevent it coming in except Protection?

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. ROBINSON: 15.
asked the Minister of Health if the widow of a man aged 70, an insured person at the commencement of the Act, who died subsequent to 2nd January, 1926, will be eligible for the old age pension at 65, the widow herself not being an insured person?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The answer is in the negative.

OUT-DOOR RELIEF.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 16.
asked the Minister of Health if he has any estimate of the number of persons
in England and Wales receiving out-door relief from the guardians at the present time or at the nearest convenient date?

Sir K. WOOD: On the 9th April, 1927, the total number of persons in England and Wales in receipt of Poor Law relief in their own homes (excluding casuals and persons receiving medical relief only) was approximately 989,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

ANGLO-AMERICAN WIRELESS TELEPHONY SERVICE.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 18.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of wireless calls between Great Britain and the United States of America from the 1st January to the most convenient date; and if the service is paying its way?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The total number of calls up to and including the 24th of this month was 769. The service is not yet self-supporting. Receipts at present cover working costs but not interest and depreciation.

Colonel DAY: Are any negotiations taking place on the reduction of the charges for these telephone calls?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: We must have a little more experience of the working of the service.

Colonel DAY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that more of these calls would be placed if the fees were more reasonable?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: That is a matter of opinion.

UNION OF POST OFFICE WORKERS.

Commander BELLAIRS: 17.
asked the Postmaster-General how many of the officials of the Union of Postal Workers are postal workers, and how many are entirely outside the Post Office organisation?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I understand that there are nine "officers" of the Union of Post Office Workers, none of whom is a member of the Post Office service. The Executive Council of the union contains 19 members, who are all Post Office servants. I have no information as to the number of union officials connected with the various local branches,
but presumably all of these would be Post Office servants.

TWO-SHIFT SYSTEM.

Mr. KELLY: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of firms who are known to be engaged on the two-shift system for young people and women; and if he will say whether any extension of this system has been sanctioned by the Home Office during the last three months?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): Orders have been granted up to date to 494 firms in respect of 543 works, but it would appear from reports received from the factory inspectors that probably not more than one-third of the Orders are at the present time in actual use. During the three months ended 31st March last Orders were made for 22 works.

Mr. KELLY: Is there a record at the Home Office of the particular trades to which sanction is given?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: A full record is kept of all Orders which are made and that, of course, involves the trades.

BETTING DUTY.

Colonel DAY: 21.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total yield from betting taxation for the month of March?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The revenue derived from betting taxation during the month of March was £194,100.

Colonel DAY: Does this amount come up to the hon. Gentleman's expectations for the month of March?

Mr. McNEILL: There was no expectation formed of the return for any particular month.

RHINELAND COMMISSION.

.Sir F. WISE: 22.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of officials employed by the British on the Rhineland Commission; and if all the employed are British subjects?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): The number of officials employed in the British Department of the Rhineland High Commission is 48; all are British subjects.

Sir F. WISE: 23.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the approximate cost of the Rhineland Commission per month; and if the cost has been reduced during the last year?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The approximate cost of the British Department of the Rhineland High Commission for the current financial year is estimated at £3,750 a month or £45,000 per annum. The rate of expenditure during the year 1926–27 was approximately the same, but this represented a reduction of about £20,000 per annum as compared with the year 1925–26.

Sir F. WISE: Is this payment made by reparations from Germany?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes, it is.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not the fact that in any case it comes out of our pockets, and would it not be possible to effect a little economy by closing down that Department?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am answering this question on behalf of the Treasury. I think any further questions had better be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES (PRINTING).

Colonel WOODCOCK: 24.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the cost of printing the telephone directories for the two last years; and, in view of the fact that no public tenders have been invited since the work was assigned to the State printing factory in 1920, will he consider the advisability of giving public printing firms an opportunity to submit competitive tenders?

Mr. McNEILL: The cost of printing (including the cost of binding, paper, and Stationery Office distribution) the telephone directories for the two last years is:






£


1925
…
…
…
149,362


1926
…
…
…
170,710


The advisability of inviting competitive tenders will be considered on the termination of the present contract, which runs for 10 years.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a saving of many thousands would be effected if this were put out to public tender; and would not this be desirable especially at a time when economy in the State is being demanded?

Mr. McNEILL: I am not at all sure that that would be the case, but it would not justify a breach of contract.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to state from memory the amount received from advertisements?

Mr. McNEILL: No, I would like to have notice of that question.

EMPIRE FRUIT.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is taking any action to encourage the importation of Empire fruit; and whether he is satisfied that our Dominion and Crown Colonies are supplying us with a fair proportion of our imports.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Acton on the 28th March. About 25 per cent. of our fruit imports now comes from Empire sources, compared with 13 per cent, before the War, and I have every confidence that the recent steady increase in Empire supplies is likely to be maintained.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that 25 per cent. is a favourable percentage to come from our Colonies?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir. I should like to see it larger.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the supplies from mandated territories rank as part of the British Empire for these Preference purposes?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir, at any rate, not from "A" mandated territories; but from "B" and "C" they do.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why should Palestine be excluded from these benefits, when the other mandated territories receive them?

Mr. AMERY: I regret that they should be excluded from these benefits, but there are technical and legal reasons which make it difficult to include them.

Mr. PALING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the increase is very small, as evidenced by an answer given a few moments ago? Does he think that an increase of that description is fast enough?

Sir BASIL PETO: Is the right hon. Gentleman not of opinion that a duty on foreign fruit, with Preference to Empire-grown fruit, would rapidly increase the proportion of Empire-fruit imports?

Mr. SPEAKER: We must not have a fiscal discussion.

MINISTRIES (RE-ARRANGEMENT).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 26.
asked the Prime Minister if he is yet in a position to state what Government Department will be responsible for the administration of the London Traffic Act when the Ministry of Transport ceases to function?

Sir JOHN POWER: 27.
asked the Prime Minister whether, under the scheme of re-organisation, it is intended to preserve the close link between British industry and the Consular Service brought into being by the existence of the Department of Overseas Trade as a joint Department of the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I would refer the hon. Members to the answer which I gave yesterday in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Tottenham, North.

WOMEN FRANCHISE.

Sir JOHN GANZONI: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether, upon the passage of the proposed Franchise Bill,
he will leave the question of the age at which the vote will be given to a free Vote of the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: It would be premature to reply to this and similar questions.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that by leaving this question to a free Vote of the House he will, in effect, be withdrawing Government support for a Measure which they are pledged to support?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am grateful for the suggestion, which is, none the less, premature.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Will the Prime Minister state that the only pledge given by him at the last election was that the whole matter would be referred to a Speaker's Conference, on the lines of the last Conference??

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION.

EMPIRE TRADE.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I beg to give notice that, on this day four weeks, I will call attention to certain aspects of Empire trade, and move a Resolution.

AGRICULTURE.

Sir HARRY HOPE: I beg to give notice that, on this day four weeks, I will call attention to the condition of Agriculture, and move a Resolution.

CONDEMNED HOUSING.

Mr. ALBERY: I beg to give notice that, on this day four weeks, I will call attention to the Condemned Housing, and move a Resolution.

GOVERNMENT PLEDGES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to give notice that, on this day four weeks, I will call attention to the failure of the Government to keep their Pledges, and move a Resolution.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they
had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Major Hills and Lieut.-General Sir Arthur Holland; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Gates and Mr. Harland.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Landlord and Tenant (No. 2) Bill): Sir George Hume; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Meller.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS).

Special Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read;

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS.

REPORT [11TH APRIL].

Order read for Consideration of Seventh and subsequent Resolutions.

TOBACCO (CUSTOMS).

7. "That in lieu of the Customs duties now chargeable on tobacco imported into Great Britain or Northern Ireland there shall on and after the twelfth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, be charged the following duties, that is to say:—

Upon tobacco unmanufactured, namely:—

Containing 10 lbs. or more of moisture in every 100 lbs. weight thereof—



s.
d.


Unstripped the pound
8
10


Stripped the pound
8
10½


Containing less than 10 lbs. of moisture in every 100 lbs.
weight thereof—




Unstripped the pound
9
9½


 Stripped the pound
9
10


Upon tobacco manufactured, namely:—




Cigars the pound
16
10


Cigarettes the pound
13
7


Cavendish or Negrohead the pound
12
10


Cavendish or Negrohead manufactured in bond the
pound
11
2½


Other manufactured tobacco the pound
11
2½


Snuff containing more than 13 lbs. of moisture in every 100 lbs. Weight thereof the pound
10
7


Snuff not containing more than 13 lbs. of moisture in every 100 lbs. weight thereof the pound
12
10

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

TOBACCO (EXCISE).

8. "That in lieu of the Excise duties now chargeable on tobacco grown in Great Britain or Northern Ireland there shall on and after the twelfth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, be charged the following duties, that is to say:—

Upon tobacco unmanufactured, namely:—



s.
d.


Tobacco containing 10 pounds or more of moisture in every 100 pounds weight thereof the pound
6
7½


Tobacco containing less than 10 pounds of moisture in every 100 pounds weight thereof the pound
7
4⅜

Upon tobacco manufactured, namely:—



s.
d.


Cavendish or Negrohead manufactured in bond
8
7⅜


and so in proportion for any less quantity.

And it is declared that is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

MATCHES (CUSTOMS).

9. "That in lieu of the Customs duty now chargeable upon matches imported into Great Britain or Northern Ireland there shall on and after the twelfth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, be charged the following duties, that is to say:—


Containers in which there are not more than 10 matches—




For every 1,000 such containers
6
2


Containers in which there are more than 10 matches, but not more than 20 matches—




For every 1,000 such containers
12
4


Containers in which there are more than 20 matches, but not more than 50 matches—




For every 144 such containers
4
4


In respect of every additional 25 matches, or part of 25 matches, over 50 in a container—




For every 144 such containers, an additional duty of
2
2

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of The Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

MATCHES (EXCISE).

10. "That in lieu of the Excise duty now chargeable upon matches made in Great Britain or Northern Ireland there shall on and after the twelfth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, be charged the following duties, that is to say:—


Containers in which there are not more than 10 matches—





s.
d.


For every 1,000 such containers
6
0


Containers in which there are mare than 10 matches, but not more than 20 matches—




For every 1,000 such containers
12
0


Containers in which there are more than 20 matches, but not more than 50 matches—




For every 144 such containers
4
2


In respect of every additional 25 matches, or part of 25 matches, over 50 in a container—




For every 144 such containers, an additional duty of
2
1


and so in proportion for any less number of containers.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

POTTERY.

11. "That during a period of five years beginning on the nineteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, there shall be charged on the importation into Great Britain or Northern Ireland of articles of translucent pottery or of vitrified pottery, being either articles suitable for use in connection with the serving of food or drink or component parts of such articles, a duty of Customs at the rate of one pound and eight shillings for every hundredweight thereof."

MECHANICALLY-PROPELLED VEHICLES.

12. "That—

(1) in the case of vehicles registered under the Roads Act, 1920, in the name of a person engaged in agriculture and used solely by that person for the purpose of the conveyance of the produce of, and of articles required for the purposes of, the agricultural land which he occupies, and for no other purpose, there shall on and after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, be charged, in lieu of the Excise duties now chargeable in respect of such vehicles under the Second Schedule to the finance Act, 1920, as amended by the Finance Act, 1926, the following duties of Excise:—

If the vehicle—



£


Does not exceed 12 cwt. in weight unladen
10


Exceeds 12 cwt. but does not exceed 1 ton in weight unladen
16


Exceeds 1 ton but does not exceed 2 tons in weight unladen
21


Exceeds 2 tons in weight unladen
25;

(2) the said Second Schedule as amended shall have effect as if—

(a) for the words 'used for haulage solely in connection with agriculture' in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph (4) there were substituted the words 'being vehicles registered under the Roads Act, 1920, in the name of a person engaged in agriculture, and used solely by that person for the haulage of the produce of, or of articles required for the purposes of, the agricultural land which he occupies, and for no other purpose'; and
(b) sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph (4) were omitted therefrom; and
(c) in sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph (4) for the words 'used at
844
any time otherwise than in connection with agriculture' there were substituted the words 'other than any such vehicles in respect of which duty is chargeable under sub-paragraph (1) or sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph.

(3) references in any other enactment to the full amount of the duties chargeable in respect of any mechanically-propelled vehicles shall be construed as references to the duties chargeable under this Resolution in respect of those vehicles."

INCOME TAX.

CHARGE OF TAX.

13. "That—

(a) Income Tax shall be charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, at the rate of four shillings in the pound, and the same Super-tax shall be charged for that year as was charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-six; and
(b) all such enactments as had effect with respect to the Income Tax and Super-tax charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-six, shall have effect with respect to the tax charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, subject to the provisions of Part IV of the Finance Act, 1926; and
(c) the annual value of any property which has been adopted for the purpose of Income Tax under Schedules A and B for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-six, shall be taken as the annual value of that property for the same purpose for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven;

Provided that the foregoing provision relating to annual value shall not apply to lands, tenements and hereditaments in the administrative county of London with respect to which the valuation list under the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, is by that Act made conclusive for the purposes of Income Tax.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

PAYMENT OF INCOME TAX BY INSTALMENTS.

14. "That Sub-section (2) of Section one hundred and fifty-seven of the Income Tax Act, 1918, shall cease to have effect so far as it provides for the payment in two instalments of Income Tax charged under Schedule A."

INCOME UNDER CERTAIN DISPOSITIONS TO BE TREATED FOR PURPOSES OF INCOME TAX AS INCOME OF DISPONOR.

15. "That any income which by virtue or in consequence of any disposition made, directly or indirectly, by any person after the eleventh day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven (other than a disposition made for valuable and sufficient consideration) is payable to or applicable for the benefit of any other person, but exclusive of any income which—

(i) is payable to an individual for his own use for some period which exceeds six years or is applicable for the benefit of a named individual for such a period;
(ii) arises from capital of which the disponor has by the disposition absolutely divested himself in favour or for the benefit of that other person;

shall for the purposes of the enactments relating to Income Tax (including Supertax) be deemed to be the income of the disponor and not to be for those purposes the income of any other person, and where by virtue of this provision any additional Income Tax or Super-tax becomes chargeable on and is paid by the disponor, he shall be entitled to recover the amount of the tax so paid from any trustee or other person to whom the income is payable by virtue or in consequence of the disposition.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

INCOME TAX ON CERTAIN COPYRIGHT ROYALTIES TO BE PAYABLE BY DEDUCTION.

16. "That where any royalty or other sum is paid on or after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, in respect of a copyright (not including a copyright in any dramatic work being a cinematograph production, or in any artistic work being a photograph intended to be used for the purpose of the exhibition of pictures or other optical effects by means of a cinematograph or other similar apparatus), or where any payment on account of any such royalty or other sum is made at any time between the eleventh day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, and the said first day of July in respect of the matter arising on or after the said first day of July, and the owner of the copyright is a person whose usual place of abode is not within Great Britain or Northern Ireland, Rule 21 of the General Rules shall apply to the payment of or on account of the royalty or other sum as it applies to an annual payment not payable out of profits or gains brought into charge, and the person by or through whom the payment is made shall accordingly deduct and account for a sum representing the amount of the tax.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall
have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

AMENDMENT AS TO RELIEF FROM INCOME TAX IN RESPECT OF LOSSES.

17. "That in the case of any person who under the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section twenty-nine of the Finance Act, 1926, has elected to be charged to tax for the years 1927–28 and 1928–29 on the amount on which he would have been charged if that Section had not passed, the provisions of Section thirty-three of the said Act shall not apply to any loss sustained in any year earlier than the year 1928–29 or earlier than the year which under the provisions of Section thirty-four of the said Act would be taken to be the year preceding the year 1929–30.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

BASIS OF ASSESSMENT OF INCOME TAX IN CERTAIN CASES.

18. "That where a trade, profession, or vocation has been set up and commenced, or income first became chargeable under Case V of Schedule D, within the period of two years immediately preceding the year next before the year of assessment, Income Tax under Schedule D shall be computed on the full amount of the profits or gains or income of the year preceding the year of assessment.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

ESTATE DUTY.

19. "That the relief in respect of Estate Duty given in certain cases in connection with settled property by Section sixteen of the Finance Act, 1907, shall cease."

TRANSFER OF SUM FROM ROAD FUND TO EXCHEQUER.

20. "That there shall be transferred to the Exchequer from the Road Fund a sum equal to the cash balance and investments which were on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, standing to the credit of that Fund."

Seventh Resolution read a Second time.

Mr. DALTON: I beg to move, in line 8, to leave out "8s. 10d.," and to insert instead thereof "8s. 4d."
In regard to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals for an increase of the Tobacco Duty, some of us, in listening to the right hon. Gentleman's Budget speech, perhaps had a vain hope that the additional three million pounds or more
which he hopes to obtain would have come out of the large monopoly profits of the tobacco trusts. We may have entertained that hope, particularly in view of the statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in his speech in regard to this increase. He said:
I have no reason to believe that the whole increase of this tax will be passed on to the consumer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1927; col. 93, Vol. 205.]
That remark was greeted by some of my friends behind me with cries of "Rubbish," which it would appear, in the light of later events, were completely justified. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!" and "Yes!"]. I will give reasons in a moment which I hope will convince hon. Members on the other side of the House that those cries were justified. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in communication with the tobacco trade before introducing this increase in the Tobacco Duty. I hope he will be able, when replying to this Amendment, to tell us about the undertakings, if any, which had been given to him at an earlier stage that the tobacco manufacturers would bear the greater part of this increase, and not pass it on to the public.
With regard to pipe tobacco, it would appear that the inrceased duty has in practically every case been passed on to the consumer to the extent of one halfpenny per ounce. I know that the pipe tobacco which I smoke has gone up in price, and I have yet to learn of any pipe tobacco which has not gone up in price. With regard to cigarettes, I am told—I do not smoke them myself—by those who smoke them that they are having to pay more than before for their supplies. The only exception which I am able to discover from the passing on of the increased duty to the consumer, is the case of Havana cigars. I read that Havana cigars are to remain at the same price as before. It seems to me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been able to make a specially advantageous bargain for the consumer of Havana cigars. I wish he had been able to extend it, as he held out a promise of doing in his Budget speech, to other classes of consumers of less expensive smoking materials.
I do not propose to go into details with regard to the enormous profits made
by the tobacco trusts, but it would be fair to remark that their profits are such that they could perfectly well have afforded to pay the whole of the increase of £3,400,000 which is to be raised by the increased duty upon tobacco. The tobacco trusts are one of the few groups of producers which are still charging wartime prices, or above, for the goods which they sell. Even before this increased duty, there had been no reduction in the price of tobacco from the maximum height reached in war time, and it does raise the presumption that tobacco companies are very well able to bear some increased burden. Our complaint, as I have already said, is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not succeeded in making arrangements whereby the burden of this increased charge falls upon them as distinct from the consumer.
If I may go back for a moment to the past history of this duty to show the enormous increases that have taken place in the War and post-War duty, I would like to remind the House that the main Tobacco Duty, which is to-day 8s. 2d. in the lb., was, before the War, only 3s. 8d., and went up in 1917 to 6s. 5d., and in 1918 to 8s. 2d., when Preference was introduced, and was extended in July, 1925, to a quarter of the duty, at which it still remains. Under this proposal of the Chancellor, the main duty will be 8s. 10d., and the preferential rate 6s. 7½d. This is another example of the continual increase of duty even compared with the War period. Even the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the War period did not think it possible to increase the Tobacco Duty to anything like the height to which the right hon. Gentleman now proposes to raise it, and the preferential rate of 6s. 7½d. is higher than the main rate on foreign tobacco in 1917. It is well known that, in regard to tobacco, the proportion of the price paid by the consumer which goes in taxation is abnormally high. Even in the case of a cheap tobacco it is more than 50 per cent. The Colwyn Committee, who made their investigation before this proposed increase, offered this comment, which, I think, is worth quoting:
The tobacco duty is a considerable tax on the average or normal consumer of small means. Per head of population (including children and other non-smokers), it is now about 24s. per annum.
It is, of course, very much more per consumer;
The duty borne by the normal consumer with an income of £150 to £200 ranges between, perhaps, £3 10s. and £5.
Working that out in terms of Income Tax, it means that the Tobacco Duty on such an income is equivalent to an Income Tax of 6d. in the £ on incomes of £150 to £200 a year, and the proposed increase is going to add an equivalent of a further Income Tax of in the £ on such incomes. This Tobacco Duty, like all other indirect taxes, falls most heavily on those who are least able to pay it, while upon the people with the greatest capacity to pay taxation, the burden is exceedingly small. The Colwyn Committee have made available both with regard to this tax and other indirect taxes a great deal of new and interesting information. On page 94 they give a very interesting table showing the Tobacco Duty paid at the old rates by people with varying grades of income, taking the average of heavy and light smokers together so as to get a typical case. It is shown by this table that the Tobacco Duty payable on an income of £100 a year, in an average case, is £2 15s.; on an income of £200, £4 15s.; on an income of £500, £5, and so on, rising, in the case of an income of £50,000, to only £10 4s. a year. In other words, the person with an income of £50,000 a year pays only twice as much in Tobacco Duty as the person with £500 a year. That is a quotation from the Colwyn Committee's own Report. Putting it in terms of Income Tax, we see that a person with £100 a year, or £2 a week, would pay the equivalent of 6½d. in the £ Income Tax for Tobacco Duty; £500 a year, 2½d.; £2,000 a year, 1d.; £5,000 a year, ½d.; and £50,000 a year, 1/20d.
It is perfectly evident from those figures that the burden of the Tobacco Duty falls in the most unjust manner upon one section of the community as compared with another. If you had still in operation those direct taxes which the Chancellor has reduced in previous Budgets—the Super-tax and Income Tax—on the higher level, there might be some slight and plausible case, for raising a million or two by a tax on an article so widely consumed as tobacco; but when we take the reduction in the Super-tax and Income Tax, which
fall more or less according to the ability to pay, in conjunction with the proposal to increase this tax, which falls exactly in inverse proportion to ability to pay, we find that the trend of taxation under the present Chancellor of the Exchequer is to put the heaviest burden on the weakest backs and the lightest burden on the broadest backs. If we desire to get one more illustration of the lesson which is being continually driven home from the benches behind me and upon platforms outside, we have not got to go further than this particular proposal.
As the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not here at the very beginning of my remarks may I venture to repeat what I then said, that I hope he will give the House some justification for this statement he made in his Budget speech:
I may add that I have no reason to believe the whole increase of this tax will be passed on to the consumer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1927; cot 93, Vol. 205.]
I wish to know, in the first place, whether he thinks that statement can be justified in the light of the increases which have taken place; and, secondly, whether he had negotiations with the tobacco trade before the Budget, and whether they gave any undertaking that they would not pass on the duty to the extent it has been passed on? Further, has he considered at all the possibility of so arranging this taxation that it might fall upon them, and not upon the general body of consumers?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
In supplementing the statement already made, I would refer to the partial promise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave when making his Budget statement, that there was no reason to doubt that the tobacco companies, who were making such fabulous profits, would at least bear a portion of the increased taxation that be proposed. It is evident already all over the country that not only are retailers compelling consumers to pay the full 8d. of extra taxation, but in many eases we have evidence that where consumers purchase their tobacco in very small quantities, such as half an ounce at a time, they are actually being called upon to pay even more than 8d. a pound extra. So that, notwithstanding the promise that the tobacco companies had pre
viously made, the large tobacco firms are apparently bearing no portion of this increased taxation, and the retailers are going to demand certain extra profit for the money that they are compelled to hand over to the Treasury. On examination of the figures between 1913 and 1927 and; the tremendous increases in taxation that tobacco smokers have been called upon to pay, I think even the Chancellor of the Exchequer would feel disposed to say that we have reached a point when the smoker has already paid far more than his normal proportion of taxation to meet any extraordinary period of financial depression.
In 1913–14 the normal taxation was 3s. 8d. per pound. By 1917–18 it had grown to 6s. 5d. per pound, or an increase of 2d. per ounce for all kinds of tobacco. By 1918–19 the duty had reached 8s. 2d. per pound, or an increase of 3½d. per ounce of tobacco. The proposals in the present Budget carry the sum to 8s. 10d. or a taxation of 4d. per ounce upon that kind of tobacco which before the War was purchased at 3d. per ounce or 3½d. per ounce maximum. Therefore, from the point of view of the consumer of the poorest quality of tobacco, the increase in the proportion of taxation has been well over 100 per cent. since 1913–14. But the total figures, rising as they have done from £18,283,000 in 1913–14 to £53,500,000 in 1926–27, indicate the colossal increase in the taxation of tobacco, which taxation after all is largely borne by the people whose only enjoyment is to smoke occasionally. In dealing with this Tobacco Duty perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has overlooked the fact that not only must the consumer considered when increases in taxation are imposed but that there are 440,000 people who have purchased licences to retail tobacco and who are hound to be affected in a certain small measure by this taxation while wages are so low. The 440,000 retailers will find that the relative sums received for tobacco will decrease, and unless they do on a universal scale what has been done in a few instances already, that is, charge more than the 8d. per pound now imposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so that they shall obtain some extra sum for the collection of this increased taxation, their normal profits are bound to be reduced.
I have a letter here from one of my constituents, stating that a meeting has already been held and a protest carried against the price that retailers are now charging for tobacco. The letter also states that the retailers have intimated to the local consumers of tobacco that they cannot be expected to handle pounds per week extra unless, they are to receive some remuneration for the collection of the taxation that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is imposing. I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the proportion of taxation upon the poorer qualities of tobacco as compared with the proportion of taxation on the better qualities is one further instance of the incidence of taxation falling heaviest on the shoulders of those who are least able to bear it. Something was said yesterday by the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) of the proportions of direct and indirect taxation to-day compared with the proportions in 1913–14. I would remind the House that, while the proportions have changed very considerably, other changes have taken place which tend to cancel out the adverse effect that they may have had upon the direct Income Tax payers. While the proportion of direct and indirect taxation has certainly changed, the amount of money paid by the nation in interest on the National Debt service has also changed considerably. While in 1913–14 we were called upon to pay only £19,000,000 interest for National Debt services, in 1926–27 we were called upon to pay well over £300,000,000 for the same purpose. People who are called upon to pay direct taxation are very largely the people who are the recipients of that increased interest.
One must come down to the man with £2 per week to know the real evil of any increase in indirect taxation. While it may not be the most desirable thing to cultivate the habit of smoking, the habit has been cultivated; it is here and it undoubtedly does form the only luxury that a very large proportion of the lower paid workers of this country enjoy. It seems to me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is imposing further upon the poorer section of the community and limiting their few privileges, and to that extent one is fully justified in opposing this new imposition. I would also remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that his proposal may have some disastrous con
sequences in some of our Poor Law institutions. I was once a member of a board of guardians who used to provide the aged inmates with an ounce of tobacco per week. When the guardians were in a very pleasant frame of mind a few years ago they sympathised still more with the aged people who had spent 50, 60 or more years of their lives in arduous toil, and they agreed to increase the allowance of tobacco by allocating to each inmate who was a smoker two ounces a week. This increased taxation is going to be a further addition to the charges of Poor Law guardians, who are already too heavily burdened as a result of the actions of this Government. It seems to me that the consequences, or some of them, are not realised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I would like to supplement the question put by my hon. Friend who so ably moved the Amendment, by asking the Chancellor to justify, if he can, this further imposition on the poorest section of the community. From every conceivable point of view, notwithstanding the present financial position of the country, I cannot see any sort of justification at all for this increase in the tobacco duty over and above the point at which it has stood since 1918, when the yield was increased from £18,000,000 to £53,000,000, and now the Chancellor of the Exchequer is budgeting for £56,500,000 from that source. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday that he had no desire or intention to impose any further burdens upon the community, but obviously this is a burden upon the community and it will be felt by the poorest section of the people. For these reasons I support this Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: It will not be in order during the remainder of this Debate to have a discussion on the relative merits of direct and indirect taxation which by custom is confined to the first Resolution dealing with tea.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): ; The hon. Member who has just concluded his speech and the hon. Member who moved this Amendment have asked for some explanation and justification of certain words which were used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his financial statement upon the introduction of the Budget. I must say that I am rather surprised that the hon. Mem
ber for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) should have blundered as he did on the question of prices, because I understand the hon. Member is regarded by the members of the Labour party as an authority on economic questions, and one would have expected that he, at all events, would have been very cautious in regard to his facts, and that he would have been more accurate in his statement regarding existing conditions. The words used by my right hon. Friend on the occasion referred to were very cautious words, and he said:
I have no reason to believe that the whole increase of this tax will be passed on to the consumer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1927; col. 93, Vol. 205.]

Mr. W. THORNE: He said he had been told that.

Mr. McNEILL: Even supposing that the whole of the duty were being passed on to the consumer, is there anything in that upon which to reproach the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Government? Has anybody ever suggested that in the case of indirect taxation the tax is not supposed to be passed on to the consumer? I always understood that that was the case. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Naturally, hon. Members opposite cheer that sentiment. I know perfectly well that they are opposed to all forms of indirect taxation, and that is quite a consistent doctrine for them to adopt. The proposal the Government is now making in this connection is made upon a perfectly well-recognised system of indirect taxation. I know that Members opposite are opposed to indirect taxation in every shape and form, but, even if it were true that the whole of this duty was being passed on to the consumer, there would be nothing in that of which we on these benches need feel in the least ashamed or disappointed about.
Reference has been made to the large profits which have been earned by a number of big tobacco companies, and that is quite true; but I should like to point out that those profits are already being taxed through other methods by direct taxation. On the really important point with reference to this duty the hon. Member for Peckham in his speech has gone hopelessly astray, and I will give the evidence. The hon. Member challenged
my right hon. Friend to offer any justification of the words he had used which he said had been contradicted by the facts, but that is not so. They are absolutely being supported by the facts, and as the hon. Member for Peckham has made that statement, perhaps the House will allow me to give some details of the movement of tobacco prices, as indicated by the chief companies. First of all, I would like to say that if an excuse is to be found for the blunder which has been made by the hon. Member opposite it may be owing to the fact that he himself has told us he is not a consumer of cigarettes. I do not know whether the particular brand which the hon. Member smokes is the higher grade Havana cigars or pipe tobacco, but, at all events, he is not a cigarette smoker, and no doubt that accounts for the mistake he has made. As a matter of fact, cigarette smoking accounts for between 70 and 80 per cent. of the consumption of tobacco, and if the prices of cigarettes rise or fall, as the case may be, that is the best indication of the effect upon the price of popularly smoked tobacco.
I will deal first of all with the case of the Imperial Tobacco Company. They have issued a statement to the effect that they are making no change in the price or quality of their cigarettes. [An Hon. MEMBER: "They can make them smaller!"] I anticipated that interruption, but I am sure those who have that apprehension will be very much relieved and reassured when I say that since that first declaration was made the Imperial Tobacco Company have made a further statement under the influence of competition that their cigarettes not only will be unaltered in price and quality but will remain unaltered in every respect. That is the very satisfactory result of competition which was naturally anticipated. Before the second declaration was made by that company, another rival concern, Messrs. Carreras, who naturally wanted to take first place in this respect, announced that the price of their brands of cigarettes would not be changed, and they guaranteed that there would be no change in size, weight, or quality. There you have the two largest producers and manufacturers of the most popularly smoked tobacco in this country absolutely turning down the speech which has been
made this afternoon by the hon. Member for Peckham. Therefore, without going any further, and I could give other instances, those two companies fully justified the cautious hopes expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he said that he hoped the whole of the duty would not be passed on to the consumer.
In point of fact, what the hon. Member opposite has suggested would be the right course to take with regard to these duties is the course that the Government are taking, namely, that the greater part of the duty, as far as popularly smoked tobacco is concerned, will be paid out of the profits of these two great companies. Let me go a little further. It is not only these two great companies, but I find that Messrs. Godfrey Phillips, Limited, the Abdulla Company, Limited, Messrs. Cavanders, Limited, Messrs. Milhoff and Company, Limited, and associated companies, have all announced that there would be no increase in the retail prices of their cigarettes, and no deviation from the present high standard of quality. I will not weary the House by going into them all, but I have a number of others, all of whom make practically the same announcement, that they are not going to make any addition to their prices, and that the quality and quantity of the goods they sell will be the same as they have been before. I submit to the House that that is a complete answer to the suggestions that have been made, and a complete justification of what was said by my right hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Peckham was guilty of another inaccuracy, though not, perhaps, quite so serious, and of less consequence. He was speaking about the preferential rate on the basic grade of tobacco under the proposals of this Budget. I admit he was not basing any great argument upon it, but he mentioned the preferential rate, and his figure was 2d. wrong. Instead of the preferential rate of 6s. 9½d., he said it was 6s. 7½d. I only mention that to show that, although we all have a great admiration for the hon. Member, we certainly cannot trust his accuracy.

Mr. DALTON: When are you going to say anything about pipe tobacco?

Mr. McNElLL: I could say a good deal about pipe tobacco. I have already shown that there is no change either in
the price or in the quality of tobacco in that form in which it is smoked to the extent of 70 per cent. of the consumption and over 60 per cent. of the revenue derived. What is the reason why we have to resist this Amendment? It is a very simple one. The real reason is the same which might be given for every one of the Resolutions which have been or will be before the House—that certain revenue has got to be found during this present year, and the revenue to be derived from an increased duty upon tobacco is one which we cannot possibly surrender. The Amendment would have this effect, that it would deprive the Revenue during the coming year of two millions of money, because, if the hon. Member's proposal were carried—other Members want to keep it at the old level, while the hon. Member and his friends are willing to give us an addition of 2d. on the duty hitherto in force—it would involve a loss to the Revenue of £2,000,000, and I do not think the Hens, if it has grasped the general financial situation, will consider it possible to accept any Amendment which would involve so much loss of revenue as that.
I am relieved from the necessity of following the hon. Member into his disquisition on indirect and direct taxation, by the information from the Chair that that would be out of order; and I am glad that that is so, because I think we have had that particular form of Debate almost ad nauseam, and I de not think it would really assist us at all in coming to a conclusion on these specific proposals one by one to have the general policy of taxation argued at great length. In these circumstances, I think the House will regard the proposal we are making in this particular Resolution as a reasonable one for raising a considerable revenue; and, although I have no doubt that much will be said, in the Debate which will follow, from different points of view on all sides of the House, I confidently hope and believe that the large majority of the House will see the reasonableness of what we are doing, and will support the Government by carrying this Resolution.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman concluded by saying that no doubt, in the Debate which would follow his speech, expressions of opinion upon the proposed increase in the Tobacco Duty would be given from all quarters of the
House. When he sat down, however, I saw no disposition on the part of hon. Members behind him to rise in defence of this proposal. [HON. MEMBERS: "You were called!"] I should have been delighted to wait and see that enthusiasm in favour of this proposal which was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. At any rate, we had no exhibition, in the Debates yesterday upon many of the Resolutions that we discussed, of an anxiety on the part of the usual supporters of the Government to give their support to those proposals.
I can quite understand why the Chancellor of the Exchequer left to the Financial Secretary the difficult task of defending this proposal. It might be noted that, on the two occasions when the Resolutions discussed have been of a more important character, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has delegated the duty of defending them to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I do not know whether it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to intervene later in the Debate, but if so, I hope he will attempt to do what the Financial Secretary has utterly failed to do, and that is to offer a single reason in support of this proposed addition to taxation. I have the highest admiration for the ability and the debating skill of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, but I say quite sincerely that I have never known him fail so miserably to bring forward even a plausible defence as he has done to-day, and I am quite sure he must be feeling exceptionally uncomfortable.
What, indeed, was the case put forward by my hon. Friends against this increase? They pointed out that this proposed increase was an addition to an already very heavy duty upon an article which may not be a necessary, but which has become, shall I say, a necessity—perhaps that is the more correct word—to a very large number of the people of this country, and not merely, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out in his Budget speech, to men but in an increasing degree to women. I incline to think that one reason that has influenced him to put an additional duty upon tobacco is the fact he mentioned in his Budget speech, that women are consuming tobacco to a greater extent than they did formerly. It seems to me an obsession with the Chancellor of the Exche
quer to find ways and means of putting additional taxation upon women. I am really surprised at it. I know he was not a defender of women's rights and a supported of women's suffrage in the past but he has altered his views. In those days he believed in opposition to women's enfranchisement just as he believed in the multiplication table. Now he is a great supporter of the extension of the franchise to women and is a member of a Government which is going to enfranchise all women over 21 years of age. Has it never occurred to him what political and electoral implications there may be in this proposal to increase the taxation upon cigarettes that these women who are shortly to be enfranchised will have to pay? It may, as a matter of fact, be a determining factor with them.
What is the case put forward by my hon. Friends against this increase of the Tobacco Duty? In the first place, they pointed out that tobacco being, as I think they very properly described it, a poor man's comfort, already bears a very heavy duty indeed. I am not quite sure, but I believe, with the possible exception of the Spirit Duty, tobacco is far more heavily taxed than any other commodity. I did not quite follow some of the figures that were given by my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment in regard to the proportion of the duty to the retail price of the article. I find it, difficult from the figures of the duty upon tobacco, to calculate what is the exact proportion of the duty to the retail price of the article. My hon. Friend said that, according to the Colwyn Committee, it was something like 60 per cent. It says here that the duty on manufactured tobacco is to be 11s. 2½d. a lb. That is something just over 8d. an ounce. I do not smoke pipe tobacco, but I understand that tobacco will be retailed at from 10d. to 1s. an ounce. If you take it at 10d., I make it out that something like 17/20ths of the retail price of tobacco is duty. That is to say, when these new duties become operative, out of every 20 puffs of tobacco the working man blows, three are for his own enjoyment and 17 for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. How can a heavy duty like that be justified? Then the Financial Secretary conveniently ignored what was the main burden of the argument of both my hon. Friends, namely, that the opera
tion of the Tobacco Duty weighs far more heavily upon those who cannot afford to smoke expensive tobaccos and have to confine themselves to cheap tobacco. It is a sort of ad valorem tax. The poorer the man the heavier the burden. I know the Chancellor will say this is an optional tax and the smoker need not pay it unless he wishes, but there can be no such thing as, a justification of an optional tax, because revenue is supposed to pay for national expenditure, and everyone is supposed to benefit from national expenditure, and therefore contribution to national expenditure ought not to be optional. It should be compulsory, and its incidence should be so arranged that everyone will contribute in proportion to his means and as far as possible in proportion to the benefit he receives from the expenditure of the State. Therefore, this Tobacco Duty does not conform to that very fundamental condition of sound taxation.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I wish the right hon. Gentleman would elaborate that most interesting doctrine a little more. How does he apply it, for instance, to the Beer and Spirits Duties?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I have always said the duties upon beer and spirits stand in a special category. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh, and by laughing they simply, along with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, show how incapable they are of understanding a difficult and delicate point. The original purpose of the taxation of liquor was not so much for revenue purposes, but because it was a monopoly licensed by the State, and I look upon the taxation upon liquor as being very largely a payment to the State of the price of the monopoly that is enjoyed by the trade.
To get back to tobacco. I was dealing with the contention of my hon. Friend that the poor man pays a far larger proportion of the Tobacco Duty than those who can afford the more expensive tobaccos. Another argument is that a tax of this sort penalises a man according to his taste. Because one man happens to have a particular taste, or happens to spend some part of his means in a particular way, he is taxed, when a man who has not got that taste and chooses to spend the same amount of
money on some other article which is not taxed escapes taxation altogether. That is utterly indefensible and I should like to hear the Financial Secretary or the Chancellor make an attempt to reply to that argument.

Mr. McNEILL rose—

4.0 p.m.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Really, I have taken a quarter-of-an hour already, and I have not yet got to what there was of substance in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The right hon. Gentleman devoted a great part of his speech to the charge that had been made against the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he believed that not the whole of this duty would be passed to the consumer, and there was a strange inconsistency in what he said. He began by saying that the purpose of such taxation was that the consumer should pay, and then he devoted the greater part of the rest of his speech to trying to prove that the consumer was not paying at all. I suppose that it is his contention—and I shall show in a moment that it is not correct or true—that the great bulk of this increased duty on tobacco is not being passed on to the consumer. Who is paying it? Somebody is paying it. Well, the right hon. Gentleman says that the tobacco trade is paying it. Is it the purpose, in imposing indirect taxation that it shall fall, not upon the people who are supposed to be deriving some benefit from the expenditure, but upon a small number of people who happen to be in the trade, and therefore cannot possibly escape the payment of the duty? That, I am quite sure, he would not attempt to defend for a single moment. The fact of the matter is that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to make the best of both worlds, and that he cannot have.
I now come to the other part of his speech, in which he attempted to prove that this duty was not being paid by the consumer. I wonder if I should be in order in relating an incident that happened this morning. A friend of mine went into a tobacco shop for three ounces of St. Bruno. He threw down the usual half-crown. The tobacconist said, "Here, I want three halfpence more." What is that for?" asked my friend. "For Winston Churchill," replied the tobacconist. Then my friend said, "Damn
Winston Churchill." I should like the right hon. Gentleman to use his argumentative gifts upon my friend who had that experience this morning and to try to convince him whether it is the consumer or the tobacco trade that is paying.

Mr. McNEILL: I would not speak to a man who used such language.

Mr. SNOWDEN: My right hon. Friend might overlook my friend's language and deal with the fact. He spent the whole of his time, when dealing with this point, in trying to prove, in the case of cigarettes, that the increased duty had not been passed on to the consumer, but, while he read certain advertisements, he did not read other advertisements, half-page advertisements, which appeared in the Press the morning following the introduction of the Budget, and which told a different story. I would like to remind the House that this promise on the part of people of proprietary brands of cigarettes, well-known brands of cigarettes, applied only to packet cigarettes, namely, cigarettes in 6d. and 1s. packets, and the reason they have not increased the price of those small packets is perfectly clear. It was too small to permit them to put on the 6d. packet and 1d. on the is packet. But we had these large advertisements in the newspapers following the introduction of the Budget announcing that an increase of 2d. per 100 had been made in the price of cigarettes when bought in larger quantities. I smoke cigarettes, I am shamed to say, and I am paying 1s. 8d. per 1,000 more now than I did before the introduction of the Budget, or 2d. per 100 more. May I give the House of Commons a practical example? There has been no change in form, the right hon. Gentleman says. Here we have two cigarettes (exhibited), and that is the change that has taken place. There is one-eighth of an inch taken off the cigarette. That is how they can put it on the price. You can depend upon it that they will find ways and means of recouping themselves at the expense of the consumer. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one more question. Although the price of cigarettes may not have been increased to the consumer, has the price been increased to the wholesale dealers? The right hon. Gentleman does not know.
He had better make some inquiry into that question.
Now let us come to pipe tobacco. The right hon. Gentleman said that he could say a great deal about pipe tobacco, but he did not find it agreeable to say that great deal. About the increase in the price of pipe tobacco there can be no doubt whatever.
I need not add to the arguments which have been advanced by my hon. Friends in support of this Amendment. They have not been met; indeed, they were ignored by the right hon. Gentleman. There has so far been no defence whatever of this proposed duty. May I say this, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman's argument about there having been no increase in the price of cigarettes? He referred to the Chairman of Godfrey Phillips. Did he see the speech of the Chairman of Godfrey Phillips made the day after the introduction of the Budget? [Interruption.] He did. Then he remembers that, speaking to the shareholders, the Chairman said: "You can make up your minds that we shall pass on the duty to the consumer wherever we possibly can. [Interruption.] Certainly I am not objecting, but, as I said before, you cannot have it both ways, and that is what the Treasury Bench are trying to do. I need not at this stage say more. I shall be interested to hear the defence of this impost made by hon. Members opposite. I can imagine Members for agricultural constituencies going down and addressing public meetings of farm labourers, who are earning 30s. and 32s. per week, and dilating to these men upon the blessings that are being showered upon them by this Tory Government, chief among which is this increase of ½d. per ounce upon what practically is the only comfort that these working-men have. I wish them joy in doing that. We shall, of course, carry this Amendment to a division. I hardly expect that we shall defeat the Government, but, although we shall not defeat the Government, this action on their part will be one addition to the indictment which they are piling up against themselves, and sentence will be passed upon them when the electors of the country next get an opportunity.

Sir BASIL PETO: I would like to say just one word regarding that humorous
story which the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) told of a friend of his who went to buy three ounces of St. Bruno tobacco. I think the proper comment, when his friend was charged this extra 1½d. and he asked what it was for, would have been, not that "It is for Winston Churchill," but "It is for Mr. Cook." He is the cause of this demand on the poorer classes. I would like just to make one further comment on the ex-Chancellor's speech. I should have hoped that a right hon. Gentleman who had been in charge of the country's finances would have taken a somewhat broader view of this question of the increase in the Tobacco Duty than he did. It would have been enlightening, not only to the House but also to the country, if he had reminded us that out of that £38,000,000 deficit—all due to the general strike and the upheaval in the coal trade, or, let us say, in simpler words, due to Mr. Cook—the Chancellor of the Exchequer is raising under £6,000,000 by taxation altogether, and out of that £6,000,000, £3,000,000 comes from this one duty on tobacco, and of that £3,000,000 a very much larger part than the Chancellor of the Exchequer dared to anticipate when making his Budget statement is not being borne by the consumer at all. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer always seemed to be so anxious to put a further tax on women. In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman said, there is not a question in anybody's mind after the statement of the Financial Secretary, in which he quoted the largest firms in the country dealing in cigarettes, who have all pledged themselves to the public that there is to be no alteration in shape, form, or quality of the cigarettes that they supply, or in price, and, as women are practically exclusively smokers of cigarettes, it is abundantly clear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this case is not putting any additional tax upon his lady friends at all. There is one question in relation to cigarette and pipe tobacco which has not been wholly or satisfactorily dealt with in this Debate. The Financial Secretary told us that from 70 per cent. to 80 per cent. of the tobacco smoked in this country was in the form of cigarettes. It is no part of the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to
try to reform public taste, but I do think that it is unfortunate that that great part of the smoking which is done by the people of this country of both sexes escapes practically without any increase at all, while, as the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said —my information agrees with his—the very cheapest form of pipe tobacco will not only pay the whole duty but that which is sold in the smallest quantities will pay more than the whole duty. That is a very unfortunate development. I am quite sure that it would be beyond human wisdom in putting a tax on an article of consumption of this sort to foresee exactly how it will be borne, and in what proportion, by the people.
I would like to call the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attention to the facts as they are put before me by members of the retail trade. They are these. What was known before the War as 3d. shag—or similar quality—now cost 8d. an ounce. In order to meet popular demand a still cheaper form of pipe tobacco, presumably inferior to what was known as 3d. shag, is sold at 7d. per ounce. The poorest people who want to economise their smoking can now obtain half an ounce of this 7d. tobacco at 3½d., but the trade has not yet devised means of selling them half an ounce of 7½d. tobacco at 3¾d., because the farthing is not generally current. Therefore, unless they devise means of working down the price, not yet hit upon, in regard to half ounces of their cheap tobacco, the poor man will have to pay 4d., which is double the increase in the duty. That is very unfortunate. I feel bound to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to it—I did not know that attention was going to be called to it by hon. Members opposite—and I hope that his advisers will be able to devise some means of dealing with this unexpected incidence of the tax upon the very cheapest kind of tobacco bought by the poor.
I would like to say just one thing further, and it is, that after all, it is not to be expected that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though he has got the country out of an extraordinarily difficult situation during the last financial year, will be able to raise the necessary revenue without causing the slightest hardship to anybody. I have found among my working class friends quite a different spirit from
that which the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to anticipate. As we seem to be telling familiar stories this afternoon, I must admit that I was at one end of a cross-cut saw and my friend at the other only two days ago. He commented on the effect of the increase in the duty on tobacco, and his comment was "While we must not grumble, I shall have to take a pull," meaning that he was not going to smoke quite as much as before. I am sorry he should have been deprived of even a puff of his pipe tobacco, but he fully realises—as I believe, the great majority of his class realise—whom he has really got to thank for the present trouble, and why he has got to pay more for his tobacco, when he looks a little further than the right hon. Gentleman's friend who went to buy three ounces of St. Bruno tobacco. The country as a whole, I think, has got off extremely lightly in face of the difficulties imposed upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer and upon the country by the incidents engineered by the extreme Labour agitators last year.

Mr. WIGGINS: I rise to support the Amendment to the proposal to increase the Tobacco Duty. I want, first of all, to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon what, apparently at first sight, was very excellent information given to him when he was framing the Budget when he told the House that he had reason to believe that a great deal of the taxation would not be passed on to the consumer. At first sight that appears to be correct, but I am convinced in my own mind that it will not be very long before the manufacturers will take steps to pass a great deal, if not all, of that extra tax on to the consumer. If the consumer does not pay in that way, the manufacturer will make so much less profit and pay so much less Income Tax that someone else will have to make up the deficiency. If we are to have indirect taxation, I think that tobacco, as a means of raising revenue, is a good subject. We have heard it talked about in days gone by as a luxury; then it became a necessity to some people. Let us look at it, if you like, from the point of view of a comfort to working men. I am in a very invidious position to-day, for while I am a very heavy consumer of pipe tobacco, I am not, under this proposal, going to pay any increased
taxation. The firm from whom I purchase my tobacco are not imposing any extra charge on me, and the consequence is that while this Budget is not going to cost me any more, I still oppose this tax because it inflicts an additional burden upon the poorer people of the country, especially upon pipe smokers.
You will find that this halfpenny an ounce, except in the one form mentioned, will be passed on to the consumer. In many cases more than a halfpenny is being passed on, and in consequence a larger percentage of the tax is being paid by the poorer section of the community, which is absolutely wrong. This happens in every part of our taxation which is based on poundage. The lower the value of the article, the higher the percentage of tax. In this case the cheaper the tobacco, the higher the tax to be paid by the consumer, which is absolutely wrong. It is certainly wrong that I, smoking a fairly good tobacco, am going to escape taxation, while the poor man is to pay. I am told that, apart from the difference in size of certain cigarettes, as pointed out by the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, a particular brand of cigarette is being charged to the wholesaler at an additional rate of 2s. per thousand owing to the tax, with a provision that he is not to charge more to the consumer. The consumer is not going to pay in that case, but the retailer is. Although the retailer may have made big profits before or he may not, it, at any rate, seems to me that it is not fair for tobacco manufacturers who have made huge profits to pass the tax on to the man who has to retail tobacco across the counter. I do not know whether it is correct or not, but I am told that the additional price charged varies from is. 6d. to 2s. per thousand. If that be so, it is infinitely worse that the tax should be juggled with in this manner than that it should be placed upon the consumer, when everyone would have to pay and know what he would have to pay in consequence of this extra imposition. As an income Tax payer, if this amount of money has to be raised, I say it ought not to be placed upon the comfort of the working man, but that it should be placed upon Income Tax payers, so that non-smokers should not avoid their just proportion. I must protest, and I shall vote against this
Resolution, because I believe it is absolutely unfair to the poorer section of the community.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I must say that I do not like the suggestion which the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer makes against these big tobacco manufacturers when he manipulates two cigarettes and shows the different length of them. He has not told us whether they are quite the same cigarettes, or the same brand, or what they are, or whether he bought them. I should like to have them in my own hands. It is quite possible that when he takes such a cock-eyed view of things in general he may think that the cigarettes may not be perfectly genuine. The working man knows perfectly well who is causing these disturbances. He knows that he has to thank Mr. Cook, the Trade Union Congress, and the present state of the law—which, happily, is now going to be altered—which allows these preposterous goings on in the country. I am exceedingly sorry to see the Tobacco Duty raised, and still wore indignant to see that the Whisky Duty eras not been lowered. I shall claim the support of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) when I come to move a reduction in the Whisky Duty for the purpose of raising additional revenue, because it has already reached an uneconomic stage. This Tobacco Duty is undoubtedly the fruits of the labour disturbances that we have had. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, seeing the enormous development in the use of tobacco—the use of this commodity is always going on and on—realises that there is some money to be got out of it, and that is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer looks for. What I object to is that other luxuries and comforts of the working classes and of all classes—because I submit that the consumption of liquors are the comforts of all classes of the normally constituted masses of mankind—are being taxed to such an extent that they are becoming uneconomic. You cannot say the Tobacco Duty is uneconomic, because its consumption is going up by leaps and bounds, and both sexes are making use of it.
It has occurred to me that the explanation in respect of no increase in the price of cigarettes is this. There is a con
siderable concession made in respect of the tobacco produced from our own Dependencies. In the great Colony of Rhodesia, with which I am intimately acquainted, there is produced the finest tobacco that is grown throughout the world; and this is more and more being used and gets the benefit of Imperial preference. I am satisfied that these big companies, by their enormous organisations and the gigantic nature of their output, are able to supply tobacco at cheaper prices than they would be if its production was more distributed. I am not in favour of combines in any shape or description, but I think that if they are centred more and more in Rhodesia, Nyasaland and other places where they grow magnificent tobacco, they will be able to manufacture tobacco at a very moderate price. That is how they are going to meet the difficulty. The result of this increase in the duty will be automatically to drive the cigarette-producing companies more and more to our fellow-countrymen abroad for their supplies.
Tobacco has always been used for developing our Empire. In the old Virginia days, before we had the split with America over another commodity, which occupied a great deal of yesterday's Debate, namely, tea, tobacco was used for the purpose of devoloping our Colonies, and now it will be more and more used, and I prophesy that in the course of a comparatively short time the main source of tobacco supply for the citizens of this country, and for many other parts of the world where manufactured tobacco is sent, will be our own Colonies. This will enormously strengthen the industries of this country, because it is well known and admitted by all but the most pig-headed Free Traders, who are now, happily, becoming relics of the past, that our own Colonies are our best customers and producers of commodities. The ultimate result of this duty, therefore, will be to strengthen the position of the working classes and really to assist them, because it will lead to the development of the Colonial system.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We have heard a new argument for Preference from the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten). I did not expect to find this form of argument
trotted out by him on this occasion. He also referred to his intention of moving a reduction in the Whisky Duty. Will he tell us how that will help the Empire? Is he going to hang that on to Imperial Preference and the Tory Imperialism of the present day?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: There is no other whisky than Scotch whisky, and the hon. and gallant Member in travelling round the world ought to have found out that it is one of the greatest exports of this country.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. and learned Member has never been to Canada, or he would have sampled what is known as rye whisky. Perhaps, with one eye on his constituents, he would not call that whisky, but the Canadians call it whisky, I am told. However, those who excuse themselves accuse themselves, and the continual harping by hon. Members opposite on Mr. Cook and the Trade Union Congress and the unhappy events of last year, as an excuse for the increase of taxation this year, is really the self accusation by the present Government of their incompetence to govern. It is no use the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) following the usual practice of these days and going out directly after making his speech. The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire made the same excuse, and we had the same yesterday from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The excuse that it is all due to the troubles of last year will not go down with anyone with any sense at all. The Government are responsible for what happens in the country. When trade increases, they say, "Look what wonderful people we are," but when trade falls off and our revenue declines, they say, "Blame the Opposition!" They cannot have the best of both worlds.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is not the hon. and gallant Member aware that the government of this country is carried on by His Majesty's Government and by the Opposition—that it is a joint affair?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): These high constitutional questions are not relevant to tobacco.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I, in opposition, gave certain advice to the Government last year, which they did not
take. Hence the trouble. However, I wish to say a few words to reinforce what was said by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Wiggins), who pointed out that the expensive tobaccos are escaping the increased duty and that the poor man's shag is paying the increased duty and a, bit over. I only rose to point out another anomaly, and that is the case of the cigar smoker. Some of the cigars come from the Empire, so this will interest the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire. Cigars are falling off in consumption, and they are now really only smoked by wealthy people and a few poor people, like myself, with very refined tastes. I cannot smoke the cheaper cigarettes. I can only smoke a very limited range of tobaccos and cigars. I am happy, personally, with the hon. Member for Oldham, that the chairman of the Association of Cigar Importers has issued the usual pronouncement in the newspapers to the effect that cigars are not going up in price. Therefore, the very limited range of poor but fastidious smokers, like myself, will escape this impost, which will be paid by the producers, or importers, or retailers, as the case may be—no doubt, the retailers. I am not going to pay it, and similarly the wealthy man who smokes cigars after and before breakfast, and all day long, and half the night will be paying no extra tax at all, but the poor wretch earning 30s. or 28s. a week as a stonebreaker, hedger, ditcher, or agricultural labourer will have to pay an extra farthing for his half ounce of shag every time he buys it. I am told he is actually paying a halfpenny, but it ought to be a farthing. That is grossly unfair. It is the unfairest thing I have ever seen in a Budget, and I think this is the eighth Budget at which I have assisted in Parliament. How can the right hon. Gentleman defend it? Your cigar smoker who was paying 2s., 2s. 6d., or 3s. for his cigars before the Budget is paving no more now, while your poor wretch on 30s. a week is paying an extra halfpenny on his half-ounce of shag, the little screw of shag he buys at the village inn. It almost reduces me to speechlessness with indignation.
Now I am going to take up the cudgels for the pipe smoker as against the cigarette smoker. I am going out against the cigarette smoker. I regret that the incidence of this tax is going
to fall in such a way that the pipe smoker is to be penalised and the cigarette smoker is, in many cases, though not in all, to escape. I base myself on medical evidence. The doctors inform us that people who must smoke, those who smoke heavily and injure their health, as is sometimes the case, should smoke, if possible, pipes or cigars, and there is a general consensus of medical opinion against excessive cigarette smoking, yet in this Budget and its results a very large group of cigarette smokers will pay no extra tax, and a very large group of pipe smokers will pay an extra tax. That is bad statesmanship on the part of the Exchequer.
As for the increase of smoking among women, I do not object to that in the least. I object to cigarette smoking in excess by both sexes and by the whole country, and I am not afraid to say so, and I do not care whom I offend by saying so. The statesmanship or lack of it, that imposes an extra tax on the healthier form of smoke indulged in by the pipe smoker, and that apparently lets off the cigarette smoker, is questionable and foolish. If we looked at the health of the community—and I am only basing myself on medical evidence and not on prejudice at all, for I do not mind a bit who smokes cigarettes or other kinds of tobacco in other forms—we should have put the extra impost on the cigarette smokers and not have had any extra impost on the pipe smokers. One further result is going to be that the men who buy tobacco and roll their own cigarettes will, I suppose, be driven to the proprietary brands of cigarettes instead, and I do not think that is a very good thing either, from the point of view of health; and I have medical evidence to support that. I have attempted to put some new arguments before the House and not to go over the ground covered by other speakers, and, needless to say, I shall have no hesitation in supporting the Amendment.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I wish to put a question to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I take it, of course, that the 8s. 10d. is the new full duty on tobacco which governs the whole scale. Previously, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the preferential rate for Imperial tobacco was three-quarters of the full rate, but this
year that is changed, and the extra 8d. which brings the standard rate from 8s. 2d. to 8s. 10d. has been added en bloc to the preferential rate. Therefore, the new preferential rate for Imperial tobacco will not be three-quarters of the new standard full rate, but it will be the old preferential rate plus 8d., and, as a matter of fact, while I am no very great mathematician myself, I have worked out one or two of these figures, and I find, for example, that while the duty on a tobacco under the old full rate of 8s. 2d. was 6s. 1½d. on the preferential rate, this year it will be 6s. 9½d., whereas, if it was three-quarters of the standard rate as before, it should be 6s. 7½d. That is to say, that the duty on Imperial tobacco would be 2d. less than it is now proposed to be.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend could, in the course of the Debate, or at some other time, elucidate why, if there is a fixed proportion existing between Imperial tobacco and other tobacco, the duty is now increased as a, flat rate. In the higher items in the Memorandum it is not even at the 8d. rate, because the increase on snuff, for example, is from 11s. 10½d. previously to 12s. 10d. now, which means an increase, not of 8d., but of 11½d. on the full rate. Taking snuff again—I am afraid it is technical, but I hope my right lion Friend will see what I am driving at—to keep the original proportion between Empire and foreign tobacco at the three-quarters rate instead of the flat rate increase of 8d. on the original standard rate, the new preferential duty would be 9s. 7½d. instead of 9s. 10⅜d. I raise this, because, as a matter of fact, everyone in this House, probably, is aware of the tremendous increase which is taking place very rapidly throughout the country in the consumption of Imperial tobacco. Only last week-end a tobacconist in my constituency told me that in the last three years the change in demand had been quite out of all recognition, and that now—and this is one of the things that appeals to people with comparatively small means—three out of every four customers demand Empire tobacco. Therefore, anything which might retard progress in growing tobacco in our Dominions would be very unfortunate if it were due to an oversight and not to some particular item of policy with which I, at any rate, am not acquainted.

Mr. R. McNEILL: I hope the House will permit me to reply to the question put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crook-shank) at once. If my hon. and gallant Friend will look at what was said last year when the Finance Bill was under discussion, and at the Finance Act itself, he will find that the stabilisation of Imperial Preference was put upon this footing, that in the case of specific duties the Preference should be stabilised at the actual amounts of the difference then between the preferential and the full rates. It is only in the case of ad valorem duties that the Preference was stabilised at the existing proportions, and if my hon. and gallant Friend will look at the figures of the present proposals, he will see that the exact amounts by which the Preference was below the figures of last year are preserved throughout. The basic rate of the Preference is 2s. 0½d. on unmanufactured tobacco, which was exactly the same, though the figures are different, last year. It is the exact amount of Preference on the same grade as last year, and in the same way he will find that carried all through. It is a specific duty, not an ad valorem duty.

Mr. KELLY: I must confess to some surprise to learn that the Government of this country have to rely on a newspaper advertisement as an answer to the arguments put forward from this side of the House. We have not had one single word of assurance from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, or from any of the companies concerned in the tobacco industry, yet the right hon. Gentleman asks the House of Commons and the country to believe that an advertisement written by some capable advertiser will lead the people to believe that they are purchasing something better than the articles they really receive; and we are to accept that as an assurance that the tobacco companies will not pass on the duty to the cigarette smokers. The Financial Secretary has a much greater regard for the two great tobacco companies than I have. Having had to deal with them in connection with their employés, and knowing how difficult it is to secure adequate wages for the people employed in the tobacco industry, I am not prepared to accept the
assurance of a newspaper advertisement that this duty is not to be passed on. We have been told more than once that all the burdens we have to bear at the moment are due to the dispute of last year. It is a wonderful shelter for the Government, who had every opportunity of straightening matters out, but, owing to their incapacity, or some other fault, were unable to cope with the situation. We have never had any explanation from any Member of the Government as to how the burden that has to be met now is due to the dispute last year. All the Government have done is to try and make the people of this country believe that the reason they are being asked to pay extra for their tobacco is because the coal owners locked out their workmen last year—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That may be relevant on Second Reading but it cannot be relevant on the Tobacco Duty.

Mr. KELLY: I was dealing with the reasons, which have been given more than once during the discussion, for the extra duty now being imposed.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is perfectly in order, if the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has said that this duty is due to the coal strike of last year, to controvert that view, but he cannot go beyond that.

Mr. KELLY: If the Financial Secretary has not said it the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated it more than once during this and other stages of the Budget.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not spoken on the Tobacco Resolution.

Mr. KELLY: I accept, of course, your ruling, but I may say that the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) and the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) had nothing else to say upon the Tobacco Duty except to refer to Mr. Cook, who is held responsible for all the difficulties we have to face at the moment. I suggest that this duty on tobacco is just another example of the methods adopted by the present Government. In each of the last three Budgets they have imposed burdens upon the poorest members of the community. They have done it this year. They knew full
well that this duty would be passed on, and that it would have to be paid by people who are already very heavily burdened by tobacco duties which have been previously imposed. They knew full well that it would have to be paid by people whose wages are so low that they are unable to maintain anything like an adequate standard of life. Yet even with this knowledge in their possession, with the knowledge that many of the poorest cannot pay the present prices, the Government are imposing this new duty. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) told us of an incident which took place in a tobacco shop this morning. I was in the North of England last week-end and I heard some shop assistants expressing the wish that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary had been working with them in their shops during the week when they had to impose an additional ½d. per ounce on tobacco. I wish there could be that change of occupation for a period.
This duty is being passed on. We are asked to depend on the philanthropy, and everything else, of the Imperial Tobacco Company and the American Tobacco Company. I shall be prepared to accept their word when they are prepared to pay adequate wages to the people in their employ. Those who do not pay adequate wages to their workpeople are the people who can be depended upon to impose every burden they can on other members of the community. One of these companies last year had a profit of £8,000,000, and the other company had a profit of £6,000,000, yet they refused an advance in wages to the people in their employ which would have cost at the most only £750,000. They would not find this sum out of all their millions for their work-people, and the Financial Secretary asks us to accept a newspaper advertisement; not a promise made to him or to the Government, but a statement made by some smart advertising agent who puts up the kind of thing he expects the people to believe.
The Tea Duty was described yesterday as the meanest duty of all, but I think this Tobacco Duty can be ranked with it. It is very evident that the people of the country cannot look to this Government for any easement of their burdens. They can only expect the im
position of every possible burden which can be placed upon them. And the Government are imposing this new duty on the people from whom last year they took away unemployment benefit and the funds which they had collected in their insurance societies. The Government dare not impose this new duty on their friends. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Wiggins) suggested that it might have been imposed on the Income Tax payer. The Government dare not look in that direction. They hope to make that section of the community believe that they are their friends, but as far as the vast bulk of the working people of the country are concerned they intend to make them pay every penny they can. That is the policy behind this new duty on tobacco.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I do not propose to examine the question as to whether tobacco is a luxury or a necessity. Provided a man can have a certain minimum of food and water, and shelter and clothing, everything over and above that may be regarded as a luxury, but to the ordinary man in the street, although tobacco may be a luxury, it is one of those luxuries which it is very difficult for the ordinary man or woman to do without and, therefore, a duty on this, particular article is undoubtedly one the incidence of which mainly falls on the working masses of the people of the country who at the present time are very hard hit in various directions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer distinctly stated during the Budget Debate last year, when he was considering the possibility of an industrial disturbance, that if it did occur it would have to be paid for by taxation which would fall on the direct and indirect taxpayer, yet we find that in his proposals this year the greater part of it is to be found by taxes upon the indirect taxpayer. I should like to protest against the gross injustice done to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the Financial Secretary, and I was surprised that no hon. Member on the other side of the House protested against it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement—and the Financial Secretary quoted him—said:
I have no reason to believe that the whole increase of this tax will be passed on to the consumer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1927; col. 93, Vol. 205.]
We remember the circumstances in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made that statement. He was calculating how he could get the money necessary to balance his Budget this year. He proposed various methods, various ingenious methods, one after another in a long category; and then he came to tobacco. Immediately like the practised speaker he is he felt a shiver going down the spines of the serried ranks behind him and in answer to that feeling he turned round to the Committee and said:
I have no reason to believe that the whole increase of this tax will be passed on to the consumer.
5.0 p.m.
Now the Financial Secretary in those circumstances asks us to believe that if the whole of the duty is passed on to the consumer we should have no cause of complaint against the Chancellor of the Exchequer! If that happens we shall have the greatest cause of complaint against the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he grossly misled the Committee. I do not believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke in an empty way think the Chancellor of the Exchequer honestly intended us to believe that he had solid reasons to suppose that this duty would not be passed on and that he meant us to give full weight to the words he spoke on that occasion. I think we are entitled now to ask him to make his words good. The right hon. Gentleman made out that these tobacco companies were not raising their prices. First of all he tried to rule out cigarettes, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) has dealt with that argument, showing that the size of cigarettes is now being reduced. He produced cigarettes for us to see, and, further, Messrs. Godfrey Phillips, Limited, have informed the country that they do propose to increase their charges in the autumn. Therefore, even as regards cigarettes, the case which the right hon. Gentleman tried to make out is shown to be falsified and his facts are shown to be wrong. The advice which has been given by the Treasury officials is fallacious, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman, having heard the facts from so many Members, having been shown the cigarettes—so there can be no mistake about that—and having heard the quotation from the proceedings of the annual meeting of a great tobacco company, will perhaps consent to the
adjournment of the Debate while he is making further inquiries. At any rate, I hope that between now and the Debate on the Finance Bill he will make further inquiries in the light of the facts which have been brought out in this Debate. Before I pass from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, I would say how much we welcome the expression he gave to the view that the whole of the duty is always passed on to the consumer.

Mr. McNEILL: I did not say that.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say so.

Mr. McNEILL: What I said was that it was the theory on which it was supposed to be based; but the hon. Baronet must also remember that the wholesalers are included in this question of consumers. Whether the increase all reaches the ultimate consumer is a matter which varies with the circumstances. But that is the theory of indirect taxation.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: It will not be put on to the consumer if the wholesaler is patriotic enough and philanthropic enough to bear the burden, and the Government hope it will not be passed on to the consumer. So much of this argument as dealt with cigarettes has been shown by various speakers to be completely fallacious, and the data upon which the right hon. Gentleman depended has been shown to be wrong. The remaining 30 per cent. of the tobacco is pipe tobacco. As to that, the right hon. Gentleman agrees that smokers of pipe tobacco will have to pay the increase; there can be no possible shadow of doubt about that. I am surprised, I must say, to hear that only 30 per cent. of tobacco is pipe tobacco. This question affects very directly those of us who represent rural constituencies. There, at any rate, the great bulk of the tobacco smoked is pipe tobacco, and it is in the rural districts—where there is so much hardship at the present time, with agriculture depressed, and where, we understood, the Government were going to do something to help rural life: as they claim, though I do not say that on this side of the House we had much expectation that they would give help—that one of the principal little luxuries which country people enjoy, pipe tobacco, will be increased in price. The Chan
cellor of the Exchequer's argument applied only to cigarettes, but there can be no question about a rise in the price of the pipe tobacco.
I am not impressed by all the extracts read out by the right hon. Gentleman from the reports of the tobacco companies announcing what their intentions are in regard to the price of tobacco. During the 1924 Budget, when we had discussions on the McKenna Duties, the motor car companies all brought out manifestos about what they were going to do and the amount of unemployment which was going to be caused. In some cases they actually threw men out of work, although two or three weeks later they were bringing those men back into the factories, even getting more men, because they could not deal with the orders flowing in. That is how propaganda to influence public opinion is organised by the great interests which expect taxation to be put on on their behalf. It is easy for them to give these assurances, and then, as one company has frankly stated it will do, to put up prices in the autumn. I have very little doubt, and I do not believe there are many Members who have any doubt, that in the autumn, when public attention is shifted from this issue, the great bulk of the companies will raise prices of all kinds of tobacco. This increase will fall most heavily on just those kinds of tobacco used by the poorer sections of the population, especially in the countryside. It will not fall only on tobacco that is smoked; some is chewed; and it is on the smoking and chewing tobaccos of the heavier and coarser kinds that this tax will fall most heavily. For this reason I hope all those Members who, as I do, represent rural constituencies will vote against this duty.

Mr. MACKINDER: There seems to be a great difference of opinion between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury as to who is going to pay this sum of £3,000,000. I heard the Financial Secretary say that 70 per cent. of it would be paid by the tobacco companies—he said they would pay it in effect by not increasing prices. I have been a cigarette smoker a few years, and I remember a number of increases in the duty on tobacco, and I have never yet known a single case where the tobacco duty was not passed on to the consumer. In many
cases even more than the increased duty was passed on, because the duty was increased by such an amount that the actual sum could not be added to the price; they have had to place twice the amount of the increased duty on the price of the tobacco. Those of us who have memories remember those things. It is not as though this was the first occasion on which the price of tobacco was raised. Before the War the tobacco of the average working man was 3d. an ounce; if he smoked fourpenny tobacco he was supposed to be one of the "nuts." Now the cost of those tobaccos is approximately 9d. and 1s. an ounce; and yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now going to take another £3,000,000 from the tobacco smokers of this country. It may be said that a halfpenny an ounce is not much. It does not amount to much to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not know whether he smokes tobacco or cigars. I would be delighted if some of those who think that a halfpenny an ounce is an infinitesimal sum, and not worth considering, would come down for a month to living on £2 a week, as so many hundreds of thousands of people in this country do. When they had to pay the increased price for their tobacco they would start wondering where the extra 2d. was to come from. I wish some of the hon. Members opposite had had to consider ways and means to know where all these little increases of expenditure are to come from.
In working-class families on a Friday night now it is not a case of reckoning up what they are going to get, but of reckoning up what they are going to do without, and it is a generally accepted fact amongst workmen—I have passed my whole life amongst them—that practically the only luxury of scores and hundreds of thousands of men is their chewing tobacco or their smoking tobacco, and that is going to cost them 2d. a week more. The extra £3,000,000 going to the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be received mainly from the working classes. I wish to enter my protest against it. I think it is about time some of the more expensive forms of luxury were taxed instead of the working man's tobacco having an extra ½d. an ounce put on it. I wonder what it is going to mean on the price of a cigar. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Nothing!"] Nothing on a cigar, but a halfpenny an ounce on twist. It is not
fair and I shall tell people in my own constituency and in other constituencies that I think it is not fair. Why should this increase be put on the tobacco of the poor, which was 3d. an ounce in pre-War days and is now 9d., or was 4d. an ounce and has now been increased to 1s.? Because I think this is unfair and is going to mean an extra burden of 2d. or 3d. a week to men with 35s. and £2 a week, I enter my protest against it here, as I shall do in the country.

Mr. STEPHEN: I am afraid the Financial Secretary has not made out a very good case in connection with this duty. I am wondering whether he had the conduct of the negotiations with the people in the tobacco trade and misled the Chancellor of the Exchequer in connection with this duty, because it was perfectly evident when the Chancellor made his statement in Committee that he suggested that this duty was practically not going to fall on the consumer at all, but that the profits of the tobacco companies were going to be responsible.

Mr. CHURCHILLindicated dissent.

Mr. STEPHEN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer shakes his head and states that was not his intention.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I never said it was not my intention. I said it was not what I said. The hon. Gentleman really ought to see the actual words which were used, to which I adhere, and not place on them a construction which they cannot possibly bear.

Mr. STEPHEN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer's exact words have been read out twice to-day. It has been said that words are used to conceal thoughts. I do not know whether those words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were used for that purpose or not, but the impression in the Committee and the impression throughout the country was that the great tobacco combine, out of its profits, was going to have to provide this duty, and that it was not going to be a burden on the people. When some time previously the Chancellor of the Exchequer restricted the withdrawal of tobacco from bond it was pointed out in the Press that any increase of duty was not going to be an additional burden on the people, and statements were made with
regard to the wonderful profits made in the industry, and how the Chancellor of the Exchequer was simply turning to this wealthy combine, to this combine that was adding wealth to wealth, to get them to bear a share of the burdens of the day. That is the general impression there was throughout the country, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will go across the street into one of the tobacco shops there and buy some of this tobacco and ask the man, "Why is there this increase in price? "—[Interruption]—I should expect him to disguise himself a little, or he might send his Parliamentary Secretary; he could depend on his word. If he went into the shop, the shopkeeper would say—[Interruption]. I hope I am not offending the Financial Secretary to the Treasury; at any rate, I do not think he has any book near at hand. If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Chancellor will go into a shop and make inquiries, the man behind the counter will tell him that anything the Chancellor has said on this matter is all nonsense, and that the tax is to be passed on to the public. I speak from experience because that is what the man behind the counter said to me when I asked him if they were increasing the price. He said, "Of course the price will be increased," and it is no use the Chancellor of the Exchequer shaking his head or the Financial Secretary looking at me in that heart-broken manner. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has to bear his responsibility for the impression which was created throughout the country.

Mr. CHURCHILLindicated dissent.

Mr. STEPHEN: Then all the rest of the country is wrong and the Chancellor is right; but we will have to examine his words more carefully in the future to see exactly what he means. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury indicated that he could say a lot regarding pipe tobacco, but he would not say it. The right hon. Gentleman reminded me of a character of Dickens, Mr. Winkle, who was always going to skate but never did it, and when, at last, he was forced to do it, he cut an ignominious figure. The Financial Secretary, having told us that he could say a lot on this subject, never got any further, and possibly it is just as well.
There was an extraordinary amount of simplicity in the right hon. Gentleman's attitude when he expressed the view that the hon. Member who spoke from the front Opposition Bench was not as expert at economics as some people in the House seemed to suppose. The Financial Secretary said that the theory was that a tax was always passed on to the consumer and that nobody would suggest anything else. Hon. Members must have short memories. I can recall the Tariff Reformers going on quite the other tack, and suggesting that the foreigners would pay the taxes which were to be imposed under their proposals. I am sorry if I interrupt the conversation which is going on on the Front Bench opposite. I was only pointing out that the Financial Secretary "got away with it" in his statement that the people of the country were not led to expect that the tax would not be passed on to them.
He then proceeded to create the impression that it would not be passed on to them in so far as cigarettes are concerned. He read some advertisements as a proof that the tax was not going to be passed on in connection with cigarettes. I did not believe that even the Financial Secretary was simple enough to believe everything he read in the advertisement pages of newspapers or magazines. I am glad to notice that the right hon. Gentleman seems to agree with me, but evidently in this case he does believe the newspaper advertisements. It was not sufficient for him to have placed before him the two cigarettes taken from the case of the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer in order to demonstrate that one was about an eighth of an inch shorter than the other. Evidently the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to believe his own eyes, but preferred to believe the newspaper advertisements. He cannot have it both ways. He says any general tax will go to the consumer. Then he tries to tell us that this tax is not going to the consumer. He knows it is going to the consumer, and the probability is that not only will there be a large tax on the consumer but the Imperial Tobacco Co. will take advantage of the shortening of the cigarette just to take a little bit of commission on the tax. That seems to be the way in which it is going to work out, and I join in protesting against the burden which is
being placed on the working class. When the Chancellor was unfolding his statement in Committee, and when he came to the critical point he said all his difficulties would be settled by putting 6d. on the Income Tax. It was interesting then to look round the faces of his supporters. Some turned white, and some green.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The House is now discussing the duty on tobacco.

Mr. STEPHEN: I was going to suggest that too much tobacco smoking might have been responsible for the change in the coloration of hon. Members opposite on that occasion. However, the Chancellor could not contemplate doing anything like that, and so he is putting a halfpenny an ounce on to the tobacco which is consumed by the working men. If you take a workman smoking two ounces a week, that is 1d. a week, which is being placed as an additional burden on the working men.

Mr. ERSKINE: Would he save it?

Mr. STEPHEN: He may save it. There are people who have all sorts of schemes for other people, including the restriction of the population and matters like that, but I am dealing here with the Tobacco Duty, and not with birth control or anything like that. That comes to 4s. 4d. in the year. The Budget on which the Chancellor is congratulating himself puts upon the ordinary working man an additional burden of 4s. 4d. for which there is no sound reason. The condition of the working class is hard enough without any additional burdens, and I should like to hear what justification can be offered for this increase in the taxation of the workers by those who shudder at the prospect of an increase in the Income Tax. I am glad to see that the Prime Minister has arrived. Perhaps I am unduly suspicious but I was developing a theory that there was a split in the Cabinet over this matter. The Prime Minister is notorious as a pipe smoker, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is notorious for the large cigars he smokes. Some of us thought he possibly got them in order to advertise some firm, and that consequently he was not so much concerned about this matter. But one did think that the Prime Minister would use his influence to protect the working men of the country who
follow his good example in using a pipe instead of cigarettes or cigars. Evidently the Prime Minister has very little power over the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested to the Financial Secretary that arguments ought to be produced that would satisfy the man who bought St. Bruno tobacco, and the Financial Secretary was shocked at the suggestion that he should argue with a man who used the words "damn the Chancellor." The right hon. Gentleman ought to remember his own history. It would be better to talk with a man, than to throw a book at him, and I am reminded that no less a person than the Home Secretary has used the word "damn."

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We are not discussing the Home Secretary.

Mr. STEPHEN: The Financial Secretary to-day interrupted the Debate and said he could not possibly argue with a man who used such language with regard to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I suggest that one of his own colleagues used similar language on a certain occasion. The working man who is having this burden imposed on him has some justification for using strong language, and so I would like the Financial Secretary to reconsider his refusal to give arguments in this matter to men who use words of that kind. I hope we are going to get same reasons from the other side in support of this duty. We have had no reasons so far. We have had pious expressions of opinion from the Financial Secretary, and a touching tribute to his faith in the truthfulness of advertisement, but that is all. I hope we are going to hear some defence of this proposal, and I hope some little consideration will be shown for the people who are least able to bear taxation.

Mr. TOWNEND: I am glad that the Prime Minister is in his place, because I want to point out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken upon himself to repudiate the statement of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the question of whether this duty is to be passed on to the consumer or not. There seems to be a disposition on the part of the Financial Secretary to run away from the position he took up a short time ago. We have been challenged to
produce the exact words that were used by the Financial Secretary. I want to remind him of what he said on the second day of the Budget discussion, and I would like him to pay attention to the words. After making reference to the small addition put upon the Tobacco Duty, he said:
I am very happy to be able to inform the Committee, if they have not already seen it announced in the Press, that we now know that that addition to the Tobacco Duty would not have any effect upon the price of the popularly consumed tobacco, as two of the largest organisations of producers of tobacco have already announced that they will make no difference in price, and therefore it is quite clear, as we anticipated, that the competition amongst themselves"—
I hope the House will note this, because this was the alternative to an increased price to the consumer:
will compel the various producers of tobacco to go on supplying the public at the old price, notwithstanding this small addition to the duty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1927; col. 287, Vol. 205.]
I would like to direct the attention of the Prime Minister to this point, because the quarrel between the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be settled if the interests of the Conservative party are to be served. Just before the Prime Minister entered the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer when challenged with this statement having been made, very definitely shook his head. He entirely repudiated any share of responsibility for the making of that statement. I want to remind the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that there was no dubiety about the statement, because a remark which I made on the same occasion was never challenged. After the speech made by the Financial Secretary on that occasion, I said:
I am sure that the public will be gratified, when reading the speech of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury this evening, to know that so far as the duty on tobacco is concerned it will not, on this occasion, be Passed on to the consumer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1927; col. 297, Vol. 205.)
Perhaps the Financial Secretary will remember that statement having been made in his hearing without its being challenged in any shape or form. Therefore, when we have from him, as we have had this afternoon, a totally different attitude—

Mr. McNIELL indicated dissent.

Mr. TOWNEND: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Only a few minutes ago he specifically stated that this indirect taxation was imposed with the deliberate intention that the consumer would be expected to pay it, and that the usual procedure of passing it on to the consumer would ensue. He cannot say one day that the manufacturer of the article is going to meet the duty out of his profits, and come along now and tell us that this additional duty is to be paid by the consumer, and then expect us to pay very much attention to any statement which he may make in any shape or form on any subject whatsoever. We, on these benches, are placed in a very difficult position. We are trying to be just and fair to the Conservative Government when we are attacking them, as we are bound to do, in the country for this and other reasons, but it is difficult when we do not know what they mean. We are entitled to know exactly upon what basis they have applied this duty, and we are entitled to know from them who they expect will pay the duty.
There is another aspect of the question which is very serious. In the development of this duty there has been an attempt to apply the principle of equity in previous Budgets; but if ever there was a charge of a tax being iniquitous, it certainly applies to the application and the incidence of this particular tax. According to the figures which have been supplied to me, the size of the Tobacco Duty since 1914 has been increased 2¼ times. That, coupled with the statement already made that the bulk of the proposed new increase is to be shared by 30 per cent. of tobacco smokers, forces us to a further analysis. We have been informed that cigar smokers are absolved from the effect of this duty, and that the smokers of expensive tobacco are absolved. The attention of the Government has been directed to the fact that the 30 per cent. of tobacco smokers by whom the bulk of the increased duty will be borne are the least able to bear it. They are the people who smoke coarse tobacco. That means that not only has the Tobacco Duty been increased generally 2¼ times since 1914, but with the proposed increased duty the effect upon the man who smokes coarse tobacco is that he pays something like 10 times as much as he was compelled to pay in 1914.
It would hardly be fair to criticise the Government in the application of this duty, inasmuch as revenue has to be raised, if one did not endeavour to suggest some kind of alternative. I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has returned to the House. I would like to inform him that while he has been absent the statement of the Financial Secretary, which he repudiated, has been proved by the definite words having been read out in the presence of the Financial Secretary, and they have not been challenged, namely, that this duty would not be passed on to the consumer and that it was the intention that it should be met by the manufacturers of tobacco. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has indicated that he does not share that point of view which was enunciated by the Financial Secretary on the second day of the Budget Debate. The alternative which I suggest is reasonable. The Chancellor of the Exchequer wants certain roosts to rob. He managed it very successfully last year in certain directions, and he has repeated it this year as far as the Road Fund is concerned. Without touching the consumer, if he were to intercept the profits that are being made by certain tobacco firms he would find very easily that he could obtain the money which he seeks to obtain by the increase of one halfpenny per ounce on the tobacco of those who are least able to bear it. I have particulars of the British American Tobacco Company. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer can get at them or not.

Mr. CHURCHILL indicated dissent.

Mr. TOWNEND: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. It is conceivable then that he can get at the Imperial Tobacco Company. He does not shake his head now. Since 1914, while the increased duties have been applied and the man who smokes coarse tobacco has had to pay—he always has to carry the heavy burden—the profits of this particular tobacco company have increased over and over again every year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not deny that it is possible to consult with this company. Perhaps he might be able to make some amicable arrangement. With his persuasive ability, I have no doubt that he would be able to reconcile any difficulties
as between himself and the firm. Here is a nice little nest egg for him. In 1914 this company had a profit of £3,268,000. In 1919 the profits had increased to £4,500,000, in 1922 to £7,000,000—these are all clear profits to the shareholders, in 1925 to £8,800,000, and in 1926 to £8,968,000. In the meantime the dividends had increased progressively. The dividends increased from 15 per cent. until last year they were 24 per cent., free of tax. Is there anything fair in allowing these accumulations of huge profits and dividends to that extent, with 24 per cent. dividends, free of tax, on the invested capital, while, on the other hand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggests that he is entitled to tax the man with 30s. or 35s. a week to the extent of one halfpenny every time he buys an ounce of shag tobacco?
It has been pointed out that those who smoke cigars—they are the 24 per cent. dividend receivers—and those who smoke the expensive pipe tobaccos are absolved from payment of this increased tax, whilst the increased revenue is to be found by those who are the least able to bear the expense. While that happens, the people who are able to afford it avoid the tax. We know the difficulties of the average worker, particularly the lower-paid worker, in making his weekly budget balance. There is a difficulty every Friday night or Saturday in deciding what the family have to do without and what they must have. It is the people with very small incomes who are affected. We claim that they are taxed to the fullest possible extent which they are able to bear, and we ask that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider the alternative which has been suggested, namely, that he should endeavour to obtain the increase which attaches to this additional duty, if possible, from other sources, and, if need be, obtain it by the application of a tax upon the present tax-free dividends which are paid, and in that way be able to overcome the grievance of which we complain.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I do not wish to detain the House more than a few minutes, but there are one or two points to which I would like to draw attention. We have listened to-day to an exposure of the inconsistency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the speech which he
delivered to the Committee and his speech this afternoon. One effect of the position into which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has drifted has been to strike his own supporters dumb. Not a single Member of his own party has the courage now to rise in his place and defend the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My hon. Friend who has just sat down quoted the remarks of the Chancellor that two of the largest fims had promised him that this tax would not be passed on to the consumer. We have had ample evidence to-day that the Chancellor has been misled. I understand the Financial Secretary, and not the Chancellor, is to blame, but, whoever it is, the Department is really at fault, and it is due to the House that one or other of the right hon. Gentlemen should rise in his place now and give us an assurance that, if those two great firms have misled the Treasury, the Treasury has some means of dealing with them. I submit that it is a serious thing for large combines, large powerful corporations like these, to use their power and influence to mislead the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for the financial affairs of this country. Indeed, I submit that more damage might well be done in that way than is done by certain members of the working class who, for sedition, are clapped into prison. I do hope the Chancellor will feel that it is his duty to tell us what steps he proposes to take in the event of promises made to him, and on the strength of which he framed his Budget, being departed from by these rich corporations.
There is soother point to which I would like to draw the right hon. Gentlemen's attention. In the case of direct taxation, the collectors are under the direct supervision of the State. They can be dealt with, their remuneration can be fixed and their duties can be controlled. When it comes to indirect taxation, you are on quite a different footing. The collectors of these taxes are completely independent of State control. We have no guarantee, unless the Chancellor be prepared to give it to us now, that the increase in prices which has already taken place will be the last increase in the price of these commodities during the next 12 months. We have every reason to believe that when the atmosphere has cleared, when people have ceased to think about the
present action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, these combines may return to the charge, and impose even greater burdens on the people. They will do so on the ground that the cost of pruduction has been raised, and that it is necessary, in order to maintain the fabulous fortunes they have been making out of national necessities, to put up the price further. I suggest that if the Chancellor imposes indirect taxation such as we are dealing with here, and leaves that taxation to be collected by the manufaturers, he is in duty bound to see that these manufacturers do not collect from the people more than they pay to him. I think that is very seldom done, and that an examination of indirect taxation would show that not merely is the tax passed on to the consumer, but that the usual overhead charges of running a concern are added to the tax, and collected by the manufacturer or whoever controls the commodity. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that the combines which have misled him will not go further and make a profit out of the tax he is proposing to-day.
The right hon. Gentleman tried to make the House believe that there was a great necessity for imposing this burden. It is demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt that the burden will fall mainly on the working classes. The Chancellor knows that in imposing this tax immediately following upon his conduct of last year, he is really robbing the poor with both hands. He first of all robs them through their incomes. There was the attack on the miners, regarding which he adds insult to injury by blaming the miners for the necessity of imposing the tax. There was first an attack on the incomes of the miners, and now, having diminished the incomes of the miners, he proceeds to impose this additional burden on them it is all very well for some hon. Members to sneer and say that it is only 4s. 2d. or 8s. 4d., according to the tobacco consumed, but to a person with a low wage 4s. 2d. or 8s. 4d. is a substantial sum, however little it may be to people who pay Super-tax. I submit that there was no need at all to go to these impoverished people for this £3,000,000.
The Chancellor, yesterday, in reply to the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), said that we on this side
had by our Amendments abandoned most of the sources of revenue; but may I remind him that there is one source of revenue which we have not proposed to abolish, and that is the revenue from Super-tax? There is, as I pointed out in the discussion on the Budget, £364,000,000 going to some 97,000 people of this country in excess of £2,000 a year each. Surely if the Chancellor had been at all anxious to find the £3,000,000 without putting his hand in the pockets of the poor, he could have taken that sum out of the £364,000,000 a year which is now going to that small number of people? They would not have missed a meal. They would not have lost a smoke; they would not have diminished the consumption of high-priced cigars or high-priced wines by a single shilling. They would never have felt the burden, and no one could rise in this House without

blushing to claim that that burden was in any sense an imposition upon the people who were asked to bear it. I submit, therefore, that this tax is entirely unjustified, that the Chancellor has been induced to impose it under false pretences by rich corporations, and that it is the next chapter, one might say, in the great serial story of how His Majesty's present Government rob the poor, and it is a proposal which, if adopted by this House, will be no credit to Parliament.

Mr. CHURCHILL rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 258; Noes, 149.

Division No. 92.]
AYES.
[5.55 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Clarry, Reginald George
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Clayton, G. C.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Albery, Irving James
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hartington, Marquess of


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cooper, A. Duff
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cope, Major William
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W
Couper, J. B.
Haslam, Henry C.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hawke, John Anthony


Atholl, Duchess of
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Atkinson, C.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Herbert, S. (York, N.R, Scar. & Wh'by)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hills. Major John Waller


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Galnsbro)
Hilton, Cecil


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hohler Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Dalziel, Sir Davison
Holt, capt. H. P.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Berry, Sir George
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Betterton, Henry B.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hopkins, J. W.W.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Blundell, F. N.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Drewe, C.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Duckworth, John
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh' n)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Hume, Sir G. H.


Braithwalte, Major A. N.
Ellis, R. G.
Huntingfield, Lord


Brass, Captain W.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hurd, Percy A.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hurst, Gerald B.


Briscoe, Richard George
Everard, W. Lindsay
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Jacob, A. E.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Fermoy, Lord
Jephcott, A. R.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Finburgh, S.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Burman, J. B.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Kidd, J. (Linllthgow)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Frece, Sir Walter de
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Gadle, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Caine, Gordon Hall
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Campbell, E. T.
Gates, Percy
Knox, Sir Alfred


Carver, Major W. H.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lamb, J. Q.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Goff, Sir Park
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Gower, Sir Robert
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Grace, John
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Looker, Herbert William


Chapman, Sir S.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Lougher, Lewis


Christie, J. A.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Lumley, L. R.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Lynn, Sir R. J


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Power, Sir John Cecil
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Maclntyre, Ian
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Tasker, R. lnigo.


McLean, Major A.
Preston, William
Templeton, W. P.


Macmillan, Captain H.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Radford, E. A.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Macquisten, F. A.
Raine, W.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Ramsden, E.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. steel-
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Tinne, J. A.


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Reid, D.D. (County Down)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Malone, Major P. B.
Remer, J. R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Remnant, Sir James
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Margesson, Captain D.
Rentoul, G. S.
Waddington, R.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Meller, R. J.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull


Meyer, Sir Frank
Ropner, Major L.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Rye, F. G.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Salmon, Major I.
Wells, S. R.


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Moreing, Captain A. H.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Morrison H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Sandon, Lord
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Nelson, Sir Frank
Savery, S. S.
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wise, Sir Fredric


Nicholson, Col.Rt.Hon.W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Shepperson, E. W.
Wolmer, Viscount


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Womersley, W. J.


Nuttall, Ellis
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Smithers Waldron
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Perring, Sir William George
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden,E.)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.



Pilcher, G.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Pilditch, Sir Philip
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Major Sir George Hennessy and Mr.




Penny.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife,West)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Murnin, H.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Greenall, T.
Naylor, T. E.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Owen, Major G.


Ammon, Charles George
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Palin, John Henry


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Paling, W.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bllston)
Groves, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Baker, Walter
Grundy, T. W.
Pethick-Lawrence. F. W.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abirtillery)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Barnes, A.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Potts, John S.


Batey, Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Purcell, A. A.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Handie, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bondfield, Margaret
Harris, Percy A.
Riley, Ben


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O.(W.Bromwich)


Bromfield, William
Hayday, Arthur
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Ellano)


Bromley, J.
Hayes, John Henry
Rose, Frank H.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scrymgeour, E.


Buchanan, G.
Hirst, G. H.
Scurr, John


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sexton, James


Cape, Thomas
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Charleton, H. C.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Clowes, S.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Cluse, W. S.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Compton, Joseph
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Connolly, M.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sitch, Charles H.


Cove, W. G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smlllie, Robert


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kennedy, T.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Dalton, Hugh
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kirkwood, D.
Snell, Harry


Day, Colonel Harry
Lansbury, George
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Dennison, R.
Lawson, John James
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Duncan, C.
Lee, F.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Dunnico, H.
Lunn, William
Stamford, T. W.


Fenby, T. D.
Mackinder, W.
Stephen, Campbell


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Strauss, E. A.


Gardner, J. P.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Sullivan, J.


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
March, S.
Sutton, J. E.


Gibbins, Joseph
Montague, Frederick
Taylor, R. A.


Gillett, George M.
Morris, R. H.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Gosling, Harry
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mosley, Oswald
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)




Thurtle, Ernest
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Tinker, John Joseph
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Wilson. C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Townend, A. E.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Wellock, Wilfred
Windsor, Walter


Varley, Frank B.
Westwood, J.
Wright, W.


Viant, S. P.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.



Wallhead, Richard C.
Wiggins, William Martin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Whiteley.

Question put accordingly, "That '8s. 10d.' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 154.

Division No. 93.]
AYES.
[6.5 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Knox, sir Alfred


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lamb, J. Q.


Albery, Irving James
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Drewe, C.
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Ellis, R. G.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent,Dover)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Looker, Herbert William


Atholl, Duchess of
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lougher, Lewis


Atkinson, C.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lumley, L. R.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Fermoy, Lord
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Finburgh, S.
Maclntyre, Ian


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
McLean, Major A.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Fraser, Captain Ian
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Berry, Sir George
Frece, Sir Walter de
Macquisten, F. A.


Betterton, Henry B.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Gates, Percy
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Blundell, F. N.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Matone, Major P. B.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gower, Sir Robert
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grace, John
Margesson, Captain D.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Braithwalte, Major A. N.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Meller, R. J.


Brass, Captain W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Meyer, Sir Frank


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Briscoe, Richard George
Grotrian, H. Brent
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon B. M.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexnam)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Colonel J. C. T.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'v)
Hartington, Marquess of
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Morrison H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Burman, J. B.
Haslam, Henry C.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Hawke, John Anthony
Nelson, Sir Frank


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Nicholson.Col.Rt.Hon.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)


Caine, Gordon Hall
Herbert, S,(York.N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Campbell, E. T.
Hills, Major John Waller
Nuttall, Ellis


Carver, Major W. H.
Hilton, Cecil
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Cayzer, sir C. (Chester, City)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Penny, Frederick George


Cayzer,Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Holt, Capt H. P.
Parkins, Colonel E. K.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hope, Capt A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Perring, Sir William George


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hope Sir Harry (Forfar)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Pilcher, G.


Christie, J. A.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Pliditch, Sir Philip


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Clarry, Reginald George
Hume, Sir G. H.
Preston, William


Clayton, G. C.
Huntingfield, Lord
Price, Major C. W. M.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hurd, Percy A.
Radford, E. A.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hurst, Gerald B.
Raine, W.


Couper, J. B.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Ramsden, E.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jacob, A. E.
Remer, J. R.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Jephcott, A. R.
Remnant, Sir James


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Rentoul, G. S.


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsay, Gainsbro)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y,Ch'ts'y)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Ropner, Major L.


Dalziel, Sir Davison
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Rye, F. G.


Salmon, Major I.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murrey Fraser
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Sandeman, N. Stewart
Tasker, R. Inigo.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Templeton, W. P.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Sandon, Lord
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Savery, S. S.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Wise, Sir Fredric


Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Tinne, J. A.
Wolmer, Viscount


Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Womersley, W. J.


Shepperson, E. W.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Waddington, R.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. Kingston-on-Hull)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Smithers, Waldron
Warrender, Sir Victor
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles



Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden,E.)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Major Cope and Mr. F. C. Thomson.


Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Wells, S. R.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Mertnyr Tydvil)
Sexton, James


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardie, George D.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Ammon, Charles George
Harris, Percy A.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayday, Arthur
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Baker, Walter
Hayes, John Henry
Sitch, Charles H.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Smillie, Robert


Barnes, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bondfield, Margaret
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Snell, Harry


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Bromfield, William
John William (Rhondda, West)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Bromley, J.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Strauss, E. A.


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Sullivan, J.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kennedy, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Cape, Thomas
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Taylor, R. A.


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Clowes, S.
Lansbury, George
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton. E.)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawrence, Susan
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Compton, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Thurtie, Ernest


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, W. G.
Lunn, William
Townend, A. E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Mackinder, W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Varley, Frank B.


Dalton, Hugh
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
March, S.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Day, Colonel Harry
Montague, Frederick
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dennison, R.
Morris, R. H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Duckworth, John
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Duncan, C.
Mosley, Oswald
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Dunnico, H.
Murnin, H.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Naylor, T. E.
Wellock, Wilfred


Fenby, T. D.
Owen, Major G.
Westwood, J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Palin, John Henry
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gardner, J. P.
Paling, W.
Wiggins, William Martin


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams. C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gibbins, Joseph
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gillett, George M.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Gosling, Harry
Potts, John S.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Purcell, A. A.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercilffe)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, R. J.(Jarrow)


Greenall, T.
Riley, Ben
Windsor, Walter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Wright, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Rose, Frank H,
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, T.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Grundy, T. W.
Scrymgeour, E.
Whiteley.


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Scurr, John

Mr. CHURCHILL rose in his place, and claimed, "That the Main Question be now put."

Question put accordingly, "That this

House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution"

The House divided: Ayes, 261: Noes,158.

Division No.94.]
AYES.
[6.15 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Finburgh, S.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Meller, R. J.


Albery, Irving James
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Applin, Colonel R.V.K.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Atholl, Duchess of
Gates, Percy
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Atkinson, C.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gower, Sir Robert
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Grace, John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Murchison, Sir Kenneth


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nelson, Sir Frank


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Berry, Sir George
Grotrian, H. Brent
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Betterton, Henry B.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Nuttall, Eills


Blundell, F. N.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hartington, Marquess of
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Penny, Frederick George


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Haslam, Henry C.
Perring, Sir William George


Brass, Captain W.
Hawke, John Anthony
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Briscoe, Richard George
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Herbert, S.(York,N.R., Scar, & Wh'by)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hills, Major John Walter
Preston, William


Brown, Brig.-Gen, H.C. (Berks,Newb'y)
Hilton, Cecil
Price, Major C. W. M.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Radford, E. A.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Raine, W.


Burman, J. B.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Ramsden, E.


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Remnant, Sir James


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rentoul, G. S.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Campbell, E. T.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whlteh'n)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Ropner, Major L.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Huntingfield, Lord
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Hurd, Percy A.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Rye, F. G.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Illffe, Sir Edward M.
Salmon, Major I.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Ladywood)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Chapman, Sir S.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Jacob, A. E.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Christle, J. A.
Jephcott, A. R.
Sandon, Lord


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Savery, S. S.


Clarry, Reginald George
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Clayton, G. C.
Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)
Sheffield, sir Berkeley


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Shepperson, E. W.


Cooper, A. Duff
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Cope. Major William
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Couper, J. B.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne,C.)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Lamb, J. Q.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Smithers, Waldron


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lister, Cunllffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden,E.)


Crookehank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Storry-Deans, R.


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Looker, Herbert William
Streatfeild, Captain S.R.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lougher, Lewis
Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Luce. Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Daizlel, Sir Davison
Lumley, L. R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Davidson, Majar-General Sir John H.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Tasker, R. Inlgo.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Templeton, W. P.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Maclntyre, Ian
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
McLean, Major A.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Drewe, C.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Tinne, J. A.


Ellis, R. G.
McNelll, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Macqulsten, F. A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Everard, W. Lindsay
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Waddington, R.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Malone, Major P. B.
Ward. Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Warrender, Sir Victor


Fermoy, Lord
Margesson, Captain D.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles




Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)
Wood, Sir S. Hon. (High Peak)


Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Wells, S. R.
Wise, Sir Fredric
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple
Wolmer, Viscount
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Womersley, W. J.



Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Willams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Major Sir




Harry Barnston.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Scurr, John


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Sexton, James


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Ammon, Charles George
Hardie, George D.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Attlee, Clement Richard
Harris, Percy A.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Baker, Walter
Hayday, Arthur
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sinclair, Major sir A. (Caithness)


Barnes, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Smillie, Robert


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bondfield, Margaret
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Briant, Frank
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snell, Harry


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromfield, William
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Bromley, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, T.
Strauss, E. A.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sullivan, Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Kirkwood, D.
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Lansbury, George
Taylor, R. A.


Clowes, S.
Lawrence, Susan
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Compton, Joseph
Lee, F.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Connolly, M.
Lowth, T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cove, W. G.
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Mackinder, W.
Townend, A. E.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Varley, Frank B.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
March, S.
Viant, S. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
Montague, Frederick
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dennison, R.
Morris, R. H.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Duckworth, John
Morrison. R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Duncan, C.
Mosley, Oswald
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H.
Murnin, H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Edwards. C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Naylor, T. E.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Owen, Major G.
Wellock, Wilfred


Fenby, T. D.
Palln, John Henry
Westwood, J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Paling, W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gardner, J. P.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wiggins, William Martin


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gibbins, Joseph
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gillett, George M.
Potts, John S.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Gosling, Harry
Purcell, A. A.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Atlefcliffe)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Riley, Ben
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenall, T.
Ritson, J.
Windsor, Walter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Wright, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Robinson, W. C.(Yorks, W.R., Elland)



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Rose, Frank H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, T.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Mr. ayes and Mr. Whiteley.


Grundy, T. W.
Scrymgeour, E.

Mr. HARDIE: On a point of Order. I wish to ask whether it would be in order for me to raise the question of moisture in tobacco. I would also like to know if it is quite fair to allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Closure this Debate in the way he has done.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot criticize the decision of the House, or the action of the Chair. There will however, be another opportunity of raising the point referred to by the hon. Member.

Eighth Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. HARDIE: On this Resolution I regret that we have not had the advantage of the advice of those who are more directly connected with the trade, and who sit on the other side of the House. We have had very little information upon this subject, and what we have had has been third, fourth, or fifth hand. I hope
the Front Bench have not silenced all their spokesmen on this subject. I want to deal with the question of moisture in tobacco, and I understand that this is the only opportunity we shall have of raising it. I was talking to my tobacconist this morning, and he told me that they were reducing not only the length but the circumference of the cigarettes and were adding more moisture. He told me that there had been a big addition of moisture to cigarettes. Of course when it comes to tobacco the same thing holds good, because the more moisture a man can get into the tobacco the less tax he has to pay and the greater is the profit. I thought that this question would most certainly have been dealt with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he certainly ought to try to prevent this foul practice which is going on. When I purchased my tobacco I said, "Why this increase in price?" and the tobacconist said, "On account of the tax." I informed him that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told the House of Commons that the tax was not going to be passed on to the consumer, and he replied, "Who would believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer?" I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have tried to retrieve that very bad opinion held about him outside this House. I thought he would have been ready to deal with this question of moisture, because what is now being done in this matter is no protection to the public at all.
It is the same principle as that which I pointed out yesterday in regard to the Stamp Duty. Care should be taken whenever we put on a duty to see that we have some form of protection for the consumer. In this case there is no protection given at all and no regulation, and nothing can be done in this direction after the tobacco comes out of bond. There is nothing then left that comes under direct control. On the question of moisture in bulk, why is it that you do not fix a percentage of moisture in sales? Why have you not described to us what is the percentage of moisture in tobacco when it is sent out from the manufacturer to the wholesaler? Why do you not tell us how much of that evaporates by resting on the shelves of the wholesaler for so many days or weeks? Why is it that you do not tell us—[Interruptian.] If
the Chancellor of the Exchequer says he has nothing to do with the question of moisture in tobacco, why is he asking for a duty on it? You say you are trying to exempt, but you are not exempting it, because it is contained in the tobacco. I had hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would now give the whole of the consumers his guarantee, whatever they may think it worth outside, that he is going to take every step to see that this practice is stopped.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Might I ask a question before the right hon. Gentleman replies to my hon. Friend Can he tell us how much money is represented by this Eighth Resolution, and also, if he has the figures, how much tobacco is now grown in Great Britain, and whether this applies to the tobacco which I believe was being grown in Ireland—whether it is still being grown in Ireland and is subject to the same tax?

Mr. McNEILL: In reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), the quantities grown in this country are, of course, very small. I think the provisional return for yast year was 7,000 lb. weight, and £2,100 in revenue. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will, therefore, see that it is a very trifling matter in relation to the whole Tobacco Duty. In reply to the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie), it appears to me that he is rather under a misapprehension as regards the question of moisture. It is technical matter, of course, concerning the manufacturer, but, as I understand it, in the process of manufacture a certain quantity of moisture is unavoidable, and I think not only unavoidable, but probably desirable. It would spoil the tobacco to eliminate moisture entirely. But, of course, the object of the duty is to tax tobacco, not to tax water, and, consequently, the duty rises with the elimination of moisture, because, in the 100 lb., there is then more tobacco, and, therefore, it is a more dutiable article. As regards the retailer, the hon. Member will have heard the remark of my right hon. Friend, which I think was very much to the point, that he is not concerned with that matter. Even if it were proper for the taxing authority to constitute themselves a censor of the purity of the articles sold by the retailer, if they went out of their way in order to see that
proper weight and quality were given, I am not sure that they would have—in fact, I am certain they would not have—any machinery for doing it. It may be an arguable question whether such a duty should be undertaken by the Government or not, but certainly it would not be a matter for the Department which is concerned with levying and collecting this duty; and, of course, it is equally obvious that, if the moisture in the shop to which the hon. Gentleman referred is very largely eliminated, there is then more tobacco to the pound which the purchaser receives.

Mr. HARDIE: There is not, because there is more moisture.

Mr. McNEILL: I think the hon. Member suggests that there might be adulteration of the article by water. I have heard of the same thing taking place in the case of milk and other articles. That may be so, but it is not my business to suggest what, if any, is the proper machinery for getting rid of adulteration. Adulteration is one thing, and taxation is another. I do not think the hon. Gentleman has suggested any reason against the particular duty which is imposed by this Resolution.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give some information with regard to Irish-grown tobacco? I think he missed that.

Mr. McNEILL: I presume that in 1922–23 the Irish-grown tobacco was included, because I see from the Return that the figure is very much larger than in the year 1926–27. I am afraid I have not authoritatively any explanation of that, but my own explanation would be that the earlier and much higher figure included tobacco grown in the Free State.

Mr. MOSLEY: The right hon. Gentleman does not appear quite to have apprehended the point in this matter, as I understand it. When tobacco comes into this country, I understand it contains moisture to the extent of 10 per cent., and to that extent the right hon. Gentleman taxes water.

Mr. CHURCHILL indicated dissent.

Mr. MOSLEY: The point is this: The moisture is contained in the tobacco.
When the tobacco comes into the country, according to expert advice published in the newspapers, it contains some 10 per cent. of water, and the right hon. Gentleman taxes the 10 per cent. of water contained in the tobacco.

Mr. CHURCHILL: No.

Mr. MOSLEY: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to explain that point. There is a further point that I might put to him before he replies, as I hope he will, to elucidate this matter. In the process of manufacture, as I further understand, an extra 20 per cent. of moisture is added, and, when the tobacco is actually sold over the counter, it contains, as the right hon. Gentleman has quite rightly explained, some 30 per cent. of moisture in order to make it fit for smoking. The great companies have stated that they are handing on the tax to the consumer, and the point I want to get at is whether more than the tax which they pay to the Exchequer is actually handed on to the consumer. They pay 8d. per lb. on the tobacco that they import, containing some 10 per cent. of moisture, or ½d. per ounce of tobacco which they import. But the 16 ounces of tobacco on which they pay that 8d. becomes 19 ounces, or slightly more, in the process of manufacture, by the addition of water. Are they then charging the consumer, not 8d., but 9½d., in the process of handing on ½d. per ounce when they come to sell the tobacco over the counter? That seems to be the process. If they are charging to the consumer an extra ½d. for each ounce of tobacco because they have been charged by the Exchequer ½d. for each ounce of tobacco they import, they are in fact making a large profit out of the process of being taxed, because, out of 16 ounces which they import, they manufacture 19 ounces by the addition of moisture.

Mr.SPEAKER: This Resolution does not deal with importing at all. The House has disposed of the question of imported tobacco. This Resolution deals only with home-grown tobacco.

Mr. MOSLEY: Then I merely address the same argument to home-grown tobacco; fie general point arises equally well on the particular case of home-grown tobacco. I was wrong in referring to imports when discussing an Excise duty, but the same point arises. Out of 16
ounces of tobacco which are taxed by the Exchequer, the companies, in the process of manufacture, produce 19 ounces, and they hand on the tax of ½d. in respect of each of those 19 ounces which they sell. Therefore, in return for a tax of 8d. which they have paid to the Exchequer, they make the consumer pay a tax of some 9½d. and I reckon that it means an extra profit to the companies of some £637,000 a year. If we reckon that the tax of 8d. brings in £3,400,000, that means that each penny of tax brings in £425,000, and, therefore, the extra 1½d. which they make on each lb. of tobacco they sell, owing to the excuse of the tax which is imposed upon them, means an extra profit of some £637,000 a year. I should be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman could meet that point, as it seems at least anomalous that taxation should be an excuse for the making of yet larger profits by the tobacco companies. With all respect, I would submit that this point has not been met at all in the Debate, and that the general case from these benches has not been met owing to the arbitrary action of the Government in closuring the last discussion.

Commander WILLIAMS: I do not wish to go into the rather exciting figures which have just been mentioned, because I do not think it would really be very profitable for the House to do so at the present moment. If one looks into the figures, and remembers what we were told a few minutes ago as to the total amount of home-grown tobacco, I think it will be seen that it would not be possible to make hundreds of thousands of pounds profit. Even the most ingenious mathematician could hardly do that. My reason for rising is to raise the question why this Excise duty is necessary at all. Here you have a little industry which is not doing very much, which in fact is almost non-existent in this country, and the right hon. Gentleman comes along and puts on this Excise duty, which, as far as I understand it, might quite easily be left off entirely; it only involves a very small amount of money. I do think that, with a Conservative Government and with a Chancellor of the Exchequer who has had some experience of enforcing in this country tariffs of a very mild nature, he might go just a little further, at any rate as far as this one small industry is concerned. If he is going to give no concession to our party anywhere
else throughout the Budget, I think he might at any rate not enforce this increased tax by means of this Excise duty. After all, we have seen—and I only give it as an illustration—a very wonderful thing happening in this country during the last few years. By means of giving a preference in the first instance, and eventually a subsidy, to home-grown sugar, an industry has been developed Which is doing a great deal to absorb unemployment at the present time. Surely, with that illustration before him, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might give some small consideration to this very minor industry, even though he may not particularly relish the product when it is actually produced as home-grown tobacco.

Mr. McNEILL: With reference to what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Torquay (Commander Williams), I do not think I can allow myself to be drawn into a debate on the question of Free Trade and Protection, which really is involved in the point that he has raised; but I would point out to my hon. and gallant Friend that the rate at which this Excise Duty is levied gives a margin over the preferential rate to Empire products, and, consequently, I hope he will see, by his own demonstration, that that margin will be sufficient to give opportunities for any expansion of which this particular trade is capable in this country. Whether the climate and soil here are ever likely to make this a large tobacco-producing country, I really do not know. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Mosley), I am not prepared to deal with the particular point as regards figures which he laid before the House, but again I would say, in reference to that, that, although I agree that it is an interesting point, the actual amount involved is in any case so infinitesimal that really its importance is not equal to its interest. As to the hon. Member's idea with regard to moisture, upon which he built up the argument he addressed to the House, so far as my knowledge of the matter goes it is a misapprehension. He spoke about moisture in certain proportions being added. As far as I understand, there was never any addition of moisture, though I will not say it is never done; but the main thing is that the tobacco leaf has natural moisture in it. Hon. Members do not seem to be aware of that
fact. It is a question, not of adding so much moisture but of eliminating so much moisture, and it is in reference to that elimination of the moisture that there is a variation of the duty.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 267; Noes, 147.

Division No. 95.]
AYES.
16.46 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Drewe, C.
Locker-Lampson. G. (Wood Green)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Duckworth John
Looker, Herbert William


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Laugher, Lewis


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Ellis, R. G.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
England, Colonel A.
Lumley, L. R.


Apsley, Lord
Erskine Lord (Somerset Weston-s.-M.)
Lynn, Sir Robert J.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Astor, Maj. Hn.John J. (Kent, Dover)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Atkinson, C.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Maclntyre, Ian


Ballour, George (Hampstead)
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
McLean, Major A.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Fermoy, Lord
Macmillan, Captain H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Finburgh, S.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


 Barnett, Major sir Richard
Ford, Sir P. J.
Macnuisten, F. A.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Mac Robert, Alexander M.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Berry, Sir George
Fraser, Captain Ian
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Frece, Sir Walter de
Malone, Major P. B.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Margesson, Captain D.


Blundell, F. N
Ganzonl, Sir John
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gates, Percy
Meller, R. J.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Meyer, Sir Frank


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Goff, Sir Park
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Braithwalte, Major A. N.
Gower, Sir Robert
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Brass, Captain W.
Grace, John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Briscoe, Richard George
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Sallsbury)


Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Buckingham, Sir H.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Nelson, Sir Frank


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bullock, Captain M.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Burman, J. B.
Hanbury, C.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Hartington, Marquess of
Nuttall, Ellis


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Oman, sir Charles William C.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Haslam, Henry C.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Calne, Gordon Hall
Hawke, John Anthony
Perring, Sir William George


Campbell, E. T.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Carver, Major W. H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Casseis, J. D.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Pilcher, G.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester. City)
Herbert,S.(York, N.H..Scar. & Wh'by)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.S.)
Hills, Major John Walter
Power, Sir John Cecil


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hilton, Cecil
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Preston, William


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone)
Price, Major C. W M.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Radford, E. A.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Raine, W.


Christle, J. A.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Ramsden, E.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Clarry, Reginald George
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Reid, D. D (County Down)


Clayton, G. C.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Moisley)
Remer, J. R.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Remnant, Sir James


Cooper, A. Duff
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Rentoul, G. S.


Cope, Major William
Hume, Sir G. H.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Couper, J. B.
Hurd, Percy A.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Jackson. Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jacob, A. E.
Ropner, Major L.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Jephcott, A. R.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Galnsbro)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Rye, F. G.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Salmon, Major I.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Dalziel, Sir Davison
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Lamb, J.Q
Sandon, Lord


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Savery, S. S.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Shepperson, E. W.
Tasker, R. Inigo.
Wells, S. R.


Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Templeton, W. P.
White, Lieut.-Cot. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Smith, R. w. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dine, C.)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Smithers, Waldron
Tinne, J. A.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Somervllie, A. A. (Windsor)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wise, Sir Fredric


Stanley, Lord (Fyide)
Waddington, R.
Wolmer, Viscount


Storry-Deans, R.
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Strauss, E. A.
Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Warrender, Sir Victor
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)



Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Watts, Dr. T.
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Mr. Penny.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall. F. (York. W. R., Normanton)
Scrymgeour, E.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Scurr, John


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Sexton, James


Ammon, Charles George
Hardie, George D.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Attlee, Clement Richard
Harris, Percy A.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bllston)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Baker, Walter
Hayday, Arthur
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sitch, Charles H.


Barnes, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smillie, Robert


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, H.B. Lees (Keighley)


Bondfield, Margaret
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Snell, Harry


Briant, Frank
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snowden, Rt Hon. Philip


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Bromfield, William
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Bromley, J.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sullivan, J.


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kennedy, T.
Taylor, R. A.


Cape, Thomas
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Clowes, S.
Lansbury, George
Thorne, W. (West Ham, plalstow)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawrence, Susan
Thurtle, Ernest


Compton, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Townend, A. E.


Cove, W. G.
Lowth, T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Varley, Frank B.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Viant, S. P.


Dalton, Hugh
March, S.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Montague, Frederick
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Day, Colonel Harry
Morris, R. H.
Watson. W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dennison, R.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Duncan, C.
Mosley, Oswald
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Dunnico, H.
Murnin, H.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Fenby, T. D.
Naylor, T. E.
Wellock, Wilfred


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Owen, Major G.
Westwood, J.


Gardner, J. P.
Palin, John Henry
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Paling, W.
Whiteley, W.


Gillett, George M.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wiggins, William Martin


Gosling, Harry
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Graham. D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin.,Cent.)
Potts, John S.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenall, T.
Purcell, A. A.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Riley, Ben
Wright, W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ritson, J.



Groves, T.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Robinson, W. C.(Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.


Ninth Resolution read a Second time.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendments on the Paper come so near to a negative that I do not select them.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. GILLETT: In one sense it may seem suitable that after discussing
tobacco we should pass on to matches, but at the same time I think it is a, little hard, after penalising smokers under the Tobacco Duties, to ask them to make a contribution in regard to matches. In his Budget speech, the right hon. Gentleman said:
Proceeding upon our ascent step by step and crag by crag, I now come to matches.
It may be that, having arrived at that dizzy height, he got slightly giddy and hardly realised what he was doing by making the smoker pay both in his tobacco and his matches. It has also been suggested that the pipe smoker is going to suffer rather more than the cigar smoker. If I am to believe that the Chancellor is especially fond of cigars, it may be that that made him indifferent to the sufferings of the pipe smoker, who, many of us must have noticed, uses an enormous amount of matches when he smokes all day long. I think many Members must have been surprised to find that about £3,500,000 comes from Customs and Excise imposed upon matches. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his hunt for revenue, came to matches, but in hunting he was not alone, because he distinctly stated that he found another interest also hunting, and, together with it, he has devised the scheme which is now before the House. He said in his Budget speech:
The British match industry has submitted to me a plan which combines an increase in the Match Duty with an alteration of its basis, which they assure me will be more satisfactory to them in relation to foreign competition than is the existing scheme.''—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 11th April, 1927; col. 90, Vol. 205.]
7.0 p.m.
It, therefore, follows that the Chancellor, looking for revenue, found a trade looking for protective duties, and we have the result before us this evening. I hope before we come to a Division on this question that we may have a little further explanation of a rather technical point. Anyone who looks without any special knowledge of the match industry at the figures presented in the financial statement, must have felt that it was difficult to know what is the result of this proposal. I should like to ask whether it means that the more expensive matches are going to have a heavy tax placed upon them, and whether we may take it that these smaller boxes necessarily represent a more expensive kind of match, and how far that is likely to have any effect upon the way in which the extra sum, amounting to about £600,000, is likely to be distributed. I do not know whether Members have noticed the figures given in the White Paper. They may possibly explain the demand of the
trade for this protective duty. They show that the estimate for the Customs duty from matches last year was £1,700,000, but the approximate receipts were over £2,100,000. The Excise duty was estimated at £1,600,000, but the receipts fell short and amounted only to £1,455,000. Under the new proposals the estimates are £2,500,000 from the Customs and £1,600,000 from the Excise duty. It would have been interesting to know what is the actual condition of the match industry. Taking the imports of matches during the last three years, we and that in 1924 the safety matches imported were, speaking in tens of thousands, 4,000,000, while other matches numbered 2,000,000. In 1925, safety matches had risen by about half-a-million to 4,500,000, while other matches remained the same. In 1926, safety matches had risen to over 6,000,000, while other matches had fallen to 1,600,000. Comparing 1926 with 1925, the imports increased, therefore, from 6,500,000 to over 7,700,000.
It would be interesting to know how far the Financial Secretary looks upon this proposal as being a protective measure for the match industry. If we are not simply to look upon it as a way of raising a little more money, we ought to place it in the category of a Safeguarding Duty. I wonder if the trade have really come to the Treasury and said that they are suffering from the competition from abroad and have asked the Treasury to help them by giving further protection. I wonder how far the rather complicated scales of duties proposed have as their guiding point, not the raising of revenue, but the protection which the Financial Secretary wishes to give to the match trade. Unless we have much fuller information than was provided in the White Paper and in the Budget speech, it is impossible to know how far we are meeting a purely financial question and how far a protective duty which the Government are imposing. Whatever may be the dispute about the Tobacco Duty, there is no doubt whatever that this new duty is going to be placed upon the consumer. Nobody imagines that this arrangement, which is so satisfactory to the British match industry, means that they are going to bear the burden of the extra duty. The Financial Secretary will
agree with me that it is the general theory, when you impose a duty of this kind, that it will fall upon the consumer, although he wished us to think in certain cases that would not be so. He will, however, agree that in this case there is no question whatever that the amount is going to fall in some way upon the consumer. It may not affect the price of a box of matches, but that difficulty can be got over by reducing the number of matches or in some other way. We come back again in this proposal, as in so many others, to the original question as to how far this system of raising money is the most satisfactory for the country. Every time one of these proposals comes before us we have this question as to the effect it will have in the form of indirect taxation. There is no doubt that matches are used by everyone and that this tax affects the poorest as well as the well-off.
It may be thought that these things are of little importance, but the policy of the Government in constantly bringing in these new proposals, in which some interference is going to take place or some duty is going to be imposed upon trade, shows that the Government do not realise sufficiently that every new proposal of this kind is going to affect the direction of industry and is really a hindrance, for a time at any rate, to industry, because it directs it into some other channel. I take it that is the object of the Financial Secretary in making this proposal, as he would only be too glad to see the match industry at home develop and the import of matches decrease. Yet this is an attempt to divert industry from one channel into another. The Government should consider that every one of these new proposals means a diversion of trade and that what trade now wants is an opportunity to flow along its usual channels without too much interference from outside sources. While the Financial Secretary can truly say that this new burden of £600,000 will not be felt very much by the consumer, he should remember the burden on the poorer section of the population. Every increase of this kind, however minute it is, adds to the burden imposed upon them. I see that a penny on 12 boxes of matches means a change of .05 in the index number. It is small, but it is the principle that matters. You
increase matches and you also increase the duty on tobacco, while in addition there are the duties on sugar, tea and other commodities. By these duties you pile up liabilities upon the poorer section of the population. That is the fundamental objection to this proposal. It may be small and insignificant, but it represents an enormously important principle and one on which we on these benches will continue to protest. We believe that the principle is fundamentally unsound and that the more you throw the burden on those least able to bear it the harder it becomes for them to face the difficulties and problems of life. That is the reason why these proposals are so objectionable. I hope that, before the Debate closes, the Financial Secretary will answer some of the points I have raised so that we may know what the proposal actually involves, what the effect is likely to be, how far it is a protective proposal, and how far financial, and what is the difference between the proposed gradings suggested in this Resolution. In that way, the House will know on what it is actually voting. We on these benches will, at any rate, not be prepared to agree to anything which, to however small an extent, is going to impose a further burden upon the poorer section of the population.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: It will help us In future Debates on this subject if at the beginning the Financial Secretary will clear up the technical points on which my hon. Friend has asked for information. In order that he may do so, may I put to him the actual issue on which we want an explanation from the Government. I understand that the position at the present time is that the ordinary standard box of matches is supposed to contain 50 matches and the public expect ordinarily to pay about 1d. for that standard box. But I have been told that a number of manufacturers, not only foreign manufacturers but British manufacturers, are introducing a system of reducing the number in the box to 45, 40 and even 36 and are still charging 1d. The public are not in the habit of counting the number of matches in the boxes and, therefore, they are, in fact, buying matches and boxes under false pretences. The Government's proposal, I understand, is so to adjust the new scale of taxation that a box of under 50 matches will be taxed at a higher rate
than a box with the standard number, so that this practice will be discouraged. If that be so, we would like the Financial Secretary to tell us clearly whether the policy of this new scale is a slight degree of Protection or is to give a certain security to the public. According to his answer, of course, the line of our Debates will be largely determined.
Still, quite apart from what his answer may be, we shall oppose this new duty upon the same ground as we have opposed the Tobacco Duty and the general system of which this new duty forms a part. Although the amount of taxation raised is not so great, the case against an increase in the Match Duty is fundamentally far more powerful than the case against an increase in the Tobacco Duty. There is practically no article of ordinary popular use whose price has been raised so much in comparison with its price before the War as matches. The price of an ordinary box of matches now is a penny; before the War boxes of 50 matches used to be sold for six a penny. That means that the price of matches has risen about 1,200 per cent., far out of proportion to any other article of ordinary popular use. Who is paying this increased price? There is no doubt who is going to pay it. I want to go into it quite fairly, and I believe it is clear that now, for the first few weeks or months, this new impost will be shared between the retailer and the public at large. It is quite clear that the class of the community who do not intend to pay it are the great match manufacturers. I see that Messrs. Bryant and May stated on 12th April, immediately after the Budget, that the price of a dozen boxes of matches was to be raised by a halfpenny. Now this new duty amounts broadly to a halfpenny on a dozen boxes. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!] Oh, yes.
Look at the position to which that leads us. There will be an increase of a halfpenny on a dozen boxes. The ordinary retailer sells matches either in dozens or, in most cases, in single boxes. Where he sells in dozens he can pass on the price, but where he sells in single boxes at a penny he cannot immediately pass on the price, therefore, he will, to that extent, bear the charge in the first instance. I have a letter from a retailer calculating that he will pay in increased
cost as a result of this about £24 a year. But that will only be the effect in the first instance. After a certain time has elapsed, there is no doubt whatever that this increased duty will finally be paid by the general public. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] And for this reason, that the cost of manufacturing matches has been steadily falling for years and the time was about to arrive, as the manufacturers themselves have told us, when, instead of matches being a penny a box, the ordinary standard price was going to be two boxes for 1½d., and thus we should have come back, to some extent, to the position we were in before the War. This new duty is going to prevent the decrease in the price of matches which the public was about to secure and is going to maintain matches at their present excessive exorbitant price and to maintain them at that price for an indefinite period of time.
When one says that the public is going to pay, whom does one mean? Once again, in this case, the public means—so far as the vast majority are concerned—the poorer sections of the State. Matches are very much in the same position as tobacco. A man with two or three pounds per week has to spend on matches a sum which is comparable with the amount spent by a man with a thousand a year; therefore, as the tax is now imposed upon the box, he will pay—the ordinary man with two or three pounds per week—during the year as much towards this new duty as the man with a thousand or ten thousand pounds a year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I remember that the match manufacturers made an appeal to this House not very long ago, and I turned up the letter which they sent to us. In that letter—sent on behalf of Messrs. Bryant and May and other firms—they stated that from their experience and knowledge five-sixths of the consumption of matches in this country came from the working classes. What does this mean? It means once again, even in this small new tax, that automatically the Chancellor of the Exchequer follows the line that everyone of his Budgets has hitherto pursued. Once again, almost unconsciously by force of habit, he selects just that kind of duty which will fall mainly upon the great mass of the poorer sections of the people and which will only fall to an inappreci
able extent on his own friends. Once more he has succeeded, even in this new and restricted sphere, in slightly altering the balance of taxation so that the wealthiest families in the country shall once more bear a slightly diminished proportion of that which the nation as a whole has to pay.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I think the country should be grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for raising the question of this Match Tax. I do not think that this House should grudge an hour or two, or even more, discussing this tax, because rarely in the history of our financial arrangements could so much money have been raised by Parliament with so little public discussion. It may not be in the memory of the House that this is a War tax. I have been through the records, and I find that the total number of lines in the OFFICIAL REPORT devoted to the discussion of this tax amounts to 63. Since this taxation was first imposed in 1916 the revenue of the country has benefited to the tune of more than £30,000,000 from a tax the discussion of which has not occupied more than six or seven minutes of Parliamentary time. I think that at the present moment the country is entitled to understand a little more about this Match Tax than it does. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) that this is on a line with tobacco. I stick to Three Nuns. I consumed none yesterday, none to-day, and I shall consume none to-morrow. Tobacco is a luxury, but matches are a necessity to the housewife, the child, the fisherman. I was in a fishing village the other day, and was very interested to find that even children were making doggerel rhymes about matches. Here is one which Messrs. Bryant and May would perhaps like to put on their hoardings:
I am only a little ruby,
A match of low degree;
Yet I kindly light the lantern
To guide sailors on the sea.
Matches are a necessary of life, and the Treasury, having raised more than £30,000,000 since the first introduction of the tax, ought to give this tax very serious consideration during the Debates on the present Budget. I propose to refresh the memory of the House as to the beginning of the tax. Hon. Members on
these benches may be interested to know that it is another McKenna Duty; not a Protective duty, but a McKenna Duty. It was introduced by Mr. McKenna on the 4th April, 1916, in the following speech:
Undaunted by the example of Mr. Lowe"—
because matches, I understand, have always been regarded as a trap for Chancellors of the Exchequer since Mr. Lowe came to grief on the suggestion to get a little profit out of light—
Undaunted by the example of Mr. Lowe, I ask the Committee to assent to a duty on matches which ought to bring in as much as £2,000,000. The suggested rate is 3s. 6d. Customs duty and 3s. 4d. Excise duty for ever 10,000 matches, or a governing duty of 4d. per 1,000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1916; col. 1059, Vol. 81.]
That is the only reference in the Budget Debate of 1916 to the tax, and the tax went through. Mr. McKenna was rather ambitious in his forecast, for in the first year the total was £1,029,000; in the second year it rose to £1,242,000; and in the third year it went up to £2,027,000, and that was because the late Mr. Bonar Law had set a precedent for the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. He also had a consultation with the match industry, and he and the match industry came to the conclusion that, by a mere readjustment, more money could be paid over to the Treasury and more satisfaction given to the industry. It may not be remembered by the House that one of the minor horrors of the War was a Match and Tobacco Controller. Happily now, he has lost his job. Who he was, I do not know, but at that time he controlled matches to such an extent that the women of the country were almost unable to find matches, with the result that there was a great deal of discussion in the homes of the people about matches, just as there is now a great deal of discussion going on. Mr. Bonar Law, having met the match manufacturers, altered the duty, with the result that in the following year the revenue mounted to £3,398,000. It has continued over the £3,000,000 level ever since, until last year the total reached £3,579,000. Now the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes along with a proposal to put another £600,000 to that, so that next year the match consumers, the housewives, the children, the industrialists, the smokers and all who
use matches will be mulcted to the tune of £4,200,000 on the necessities of the life of the people.
I would like to ask certain questions, because if the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury officials are meeting the manufacturers, I would like them to give us some information as to what the industry says about the product. I am assured by women who use matches that they are very dissatisfied with the quality of the British matches. There is a problem now being propounded in many households as to whether the womenfolk are not very well advised, not only on account of the lower cost, but on account of the quality, to buy Swedish matches rather than British matches. Women ask, "When is a match not a match?" And the answer is, "When it is a British match with a stick that breaks." I am not an authority on the matter, but housewives to whom I have spoken inform me that they have been driven to buy Swedish matches, not because they desire to do so, but because the quality of the stick of the Swedish match is much superior to the quality of the stick of the British match. I would like to ask three questions of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. What was the number of the firms who sent representatives to the Treasury to make this new arrangement involving the people in an extra charge of £600,000? I do not know what the facts are, so I do not join with the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) in the suggestion that it may have a Protective effect, and from the figures I have before me giving the comparative amounts of Customs and Excise in the last 12 years I rather think not. At any rate, the House is entitled to know why the arrangement is made, the number of firms affected, what kind of discrimination there is to. be under this new arrangement as between the imported product and the home-made product.
The House is entitled to know what kind of effect the duty is going to have as between the aristocratic match—the wax vesta—and the democratic match bought by the ordinary man in the street —the man who, I agree, is paying more and more under the Conservative Government's administration in indirect taxation. The hon. Member for Streatham
(Sir W. Mitchell) smiles. I hope the hon. Member for Streatham will go and explain to his constituents exactly what the effect of this tax and other taxes will be. If a number of unemployed were taken off the unemployment roll, put in uniforms with brass buttons, placed at the doors of grocers and tobacco shops and empowered for six months to collect the tax on matches at the counter—it might lead to a great deal of confusion—the hon. Member for Streatham would find that it would be a powerful means of educating the public in his constituency as to the vicious practices of the Conservative Government with regard to indirect taxation. I do not like to suggest it, but I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury could be made a general of such forces, he would make a magnificent object in uniform collecting these taxes in command of his squad, because he would have a most handsome appearance, and the ladies might like to pay the taxes in such circumstances.
I would like to understand exactly why the alterations were made. The full rate of the existing duty is, on any number in a box not exceeding 80, per standard gross of 10,000 matches, 5s. 2d., and on any number in a box in excess of 80, per standard gross of 10,000 matches, 3s. 5d. The change will mean that we are to pay on containers, and there are four classes of duty, one on containers of not more than 10 matches, per thousand containers, 6s. 2d.; on containers containing more than 10 but not more than 20 matches, per thousand containers, 12s. 4d.; on containers containing more than 20 up to 50 matches, per 144 containers, 4s. 4d.; and the final one, for every 25 matches or part of 25 over 50 in a container, per 144 containers, 2s. 2d Then we have on the Excise an entirely different scale. There is a scale of 5s. and 3s. 4d. at present, but that will rise under the full new scale to 6s., I2s., 4s. 2d, and 2s. 1d. I think the House is entitled to understand what is the proposed incidence of this change, what the effect is likely to be as between the home and foreign made article, whether the match industry of this country is proposing at the expense of the consumer to raise any addition to the £600,000 to be raised by the Chancellor, and the number of firms which are contained in the statement of
the right hon Gentleman that the British match industry has submitted to him a plan which combines an increase in the Match Duty with an alteration in the Excise. Since the House has had so little information in the last 12 years about the working of this tax, and since there is so much talk about the style of match and so much concern among housewives because of these continual petty increases in taxation, which eat into their housekeeping money, I hope we shall have a very full statement from the Government before this tax is once more granted, as it has been granted without debate ever since Mr. McKenna introduced it in 1916.

Major HILLS: The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) asked if this tax was a protective tax, and the answer is "No" and "Yes." The tax is not protective as far as the duty goes, for the Excise duty is only 2d. less than the Customs duty, the latter being 6s. 2d. and the former 6s. The reason for that difference is that when the duty was imposed in 1916 matches were untaxed, and the House will realise that when a tax is imposed on a manufactured article certain Excise precautions have to be taken to prevent the article from escaping the tax. You have to have an Excise officer there, and certain structural rearrangements and staff alterations have to be made, and so the small concession of 2d. upon the Excise duty as compared with the Customs duty was made in 1916, I think by Mr. McKenna, to meet the expense. So as far as the tax goes, it has no protective effect at all, but the change is protective, and rightly so, in the way, as was clearly explained by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), that it does protect the public against being sold a box with 35 matches in it when the buyer expects a box of 50 matches.
At present there is a large import of matches from certain foreign countries, chiefly Belgium and Finland, containing 45, or 40, or 35 matches, but the box has the same appearance as one containing 50 matches. It is true the contents are marked on the box, but in very small print, and the mark is mixed up with the name of the match and of the manufacturer. Very many of these boxes are sold for 1d. each, and the buyer thinks he is going to get 50 matches, but he gets only about 35 or 40. The change of the duty
will not prevent boxes of any size being sent in, but it will prevent that fraud on the public.
The hon. Member for Keighley asked who was going to pay the duty, and, of course, we all want to know that. The Excise duty is raised from 5s. to 6s. per standard gross of 10,000 matches, but the standard gross is a term used only for taxation purposes. Matches are not sold in standard grosses, but in grosses of 50 matches in a box, and 50 times 144 is not 10,000, but 7,200, and a 1s. tax on 10,000 means a tax of 7½d. upon 7,200 matches. Therefore, the figure that the hon. Member gave the House of Bryant and May's new price of ½d. per dozen increase is 6d. a gross, so that the manufacturers are taking 1½d. of the tax. The next person concerned is the importer of foreign matches. He will follow the same course and will take 1½d. of the tax. Then you have the wholesaler and the retailer. The box of matches that is sold at 1d. will still be sold at 1d., and the dozen sold for 10½d. Or 11d. will still be sold at that price, but, of course, the price is increased by ½d. a dozen. The tax has got to fall somewhere, and I think it will be divided between the manufacturer, the wholesaler, and the retailer, and to a certain small extent, the public, but not to a very large extent, because competition in the match trade is very keen, competition between the retailers is very keen, and a great many shops sell matches. Tobacconists and sweet shops, as well as the regular shops that deal in that sort of article, sell matches, and so I do not think a substantial amount of this tax will be passed on to the public.
If it be thought that it falls heavily on the retailer, let it not be forgotten that he is no worse off than he was in 1925, for the price was lowered in 1925, and he paid before 1925 exactly the same amount as he will pay now, so that I do not think that man is much to be pitied. The hon. Member for Keighley quoted the pre-War price, but he did not tell the House that matches were then untaxed and that now the tax will be 6s. per 10,000 matches. I should like to see matches sold as cheaply as they were in pre-War times, but if the hon. Member reckons out the tax, I think he will see the reason for the increased price. The hon. Member quite naturally made a strong point that the cost ought not to be passed on to the
poorer section of the public, and the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) made the same point. I have given reasons for thinking that, though some will be passed on, a large amount will not be passed on, and may I point out the compensation it is to the smaller consumer who is specially liable to be deceived by being given a box of 35 matches when he expects one of 50 matches, so that to that extent that man is protected.
Before I forget, may I join issue with the hon. Member for Leith in his criticisms on British matches, and assure him that there are many British matches of which the sticks will not break, and if he will do me the honour of accepting a box from me, I will give him one. In fact, British matches are as good as any in the world. The last question asked was as to why the alteration was made. It was suggested because of the facts that the hon. Member for Keighley has given to the House, because of the sale of what are called the low count matches, of 35 and 40 to the box, in the same sort of boxes as those containing 50, at the same price, namely, 1d., and I am quite sure, from the speech that he made and from the general view that anyone must take of such a proceeding, that as far as that goes he will support the change. I know that there is £600,000 extra taxation, and no one likes that, but a very large amount of it will fall on the importer, the manufacturer, the wholesaler, and the retailer, and I do not think that a very large amount will fall on the public.

Mr. McNEILL: I understand that one or two hon. Members opposite are as anxious as we are not to prolong unduly the Debate on this Resolution, and there for I shall occupy the time of the House for only a few minutes. It is quite unnecessary for me to say very much, because almost all the points that have been raised have been covered by thy hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills). He speaks with great knowledge of the trade, and as far as I was able to follow his speech as it went along, he has covered the ground in almost exactly the same terms I should have endeavoured to do myself. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett), who opened the Debate on this Resolution, quoted a statement made by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer when introducing the Budget, that in regard to this particular proposal he had been in communication with the trade, and the hon. Member, and also other hon. Members, considered that there is something to apologise for in having communications of that kind. I should have thought it was the most natural and proper course for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take, in order to get all the information possible from the people concerned as to what the effect would be if he carried out such a proposal.
Having quoted that statement, the hon. Member asked me whether the main purpose of this proposal was for revenue or for protection, and he said that the trade would not be likely to acquiesce in any proposals which were not for their benefit and that, therefore, this proposal is mainly protective. The answer, of course, is that Protection in the ordinary sense of the word has nothing whatever to do with it. The object of the Resolution is to obtain an additional revenue of something over £500,000 during the present year, and, as the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon has quite correctly pointed out, there is no Protection here because the Excise duty and the Customs duty are exactly the same, with the negligible difference of 2d., which has always been given in favour of the home producer in order to cover certain definite costs which are imposed upon him because he is dealing with a dutiable article. Therefore, there is no question whatever of Protection in that sense of the word. At the same time, the hon. Member on the Front Opposition Bench is quite right in saying that we have reason to believe, and it is confirmed by the trade, that it will have a protective influence, important to the manufacturer and producer in this country but also quite as important to the consumer.
Matches are rather peculiar articles in this respect, that there is hardly a commodity in which it is more difficult for the ordinary person to know whether he is really getting his money's worth. You cannot judge a box of matches by weight, and you are not going to turn out a box of matches in order to count whether there are 40 or 50 in the box. Therefore, it is a commodity in which the consumer may be easily deceived.
We believe, and the trade assure us that our belief is correct, that the change of basis, combined with the rate introduced in this Resolution, will have the effect of making it in the interests of the producers themselves, in order to minimise the weight of the duty, to put as near as possible the maximum number of matches in a box up to the next step in the taxation. Experience will tell us whether that anticipation is right or not, but if we are disappointed in that respect it will be for some future Chancellor of the Exchequer, or my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a future Budget to deal with it.
The hon. Member also said that he and his friends were going to oppose this Resolution, and all other Resolutions, not on the merits of the case at all—they do net consider the merits—but because of the inherent opposition which he and his friends have towards the whole system of indirect taxation. On that ground it is quite unnecessary to follow him. We have already had a very full discussion upon it. It is, of course, important, and I do not in the least complain of the attention that has been given to the question, as to where this particular duty is going to fall. That is important, and with regard to that, without going into a general discussion as to the merits of direct and indirect taxation, let me say this, as what I said on a former Resolution seems to have been misunderstood. Surely this is common ground and elementary, that in indirect taxation the tendency is to pass it on by one interest after another, so far as they can possibly pass it on, and therefore, the ultimate seat of payment will be the ultimate consumer, the actual consumer.
But it is not always possible to pass it on so far. There are various interests who have to handle it in the meantime. In the case of an imported article there is the importer, and the wholesale merchant, down to the retailer, and at every one of these stages the ordinary operation of the duty is interfered with by the introduction of competition. In this particular case there is very keen competition long before it gets to the ultimate consumer, or even the retailer, and, therefore, it is not possible, however much they may desire, for the wholesale dealers to pass on the whole of the duty
to the ultimate consumer. Our experience up to the present moment, which, of course, is only for a limited period, shows that process is at work. We have compared the new prices issued by some of the largest wholesale manufacturers with the actual prices of sale, with the result that while the price to the ultimate consumer has risen it has risen very much less than the full amount of the duty, and the largest part of the duty at present is being paid by the manufacturers and wholesale dealers.

Mr. HARRIS: May I ask a question in the interest of the street traders and street match sellers? I am told that a well-known Belgian match was retailed before the new duty was imposed at 4s. 4d. per gross wholesale, and that after the imposition of the extra duty it was raised to 6s. 2d. per gross wholesale. Does the Financial Secretary think that the extra price is justified by the duty?

Mr. McNEILL: I was about to say that while what I have said is true as regards British matches, it is not true, as far as we have been able to ascertain, with regard to foreign matches, and the whole of the duty, and a fraction more than the duty, is being passed on in the case of foreign matches. But foreign matches will obviously come under the operation of keen competition from British matches, and I have not the slightest doubt that if they attempt to go on passing on more than the duty, or even the full amount of the duty, that competition will compel them to change. I do not want to delay the House any further, and I merely say in conclusion that what we are doing in this regard appears to me to be a positive benefit, or likely to be a positive benefit, to the British consumer.

Mr. E. BROWN: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me—

Mr. McNEILL: I am sorry I cannot allow myself to be interrupted at this late hour. I do not wish to be discourteous, and I hope the hon. Member will not think that I am discourteous. We hope to derive more than half a million pounds during the present year from the duty now proposed. I do not think anything that has been said has shown that it is an unreasonable duty, apart from the objection on principle to indirect taxation in any shape or form which, of course, is
no answer to a proposal of this sort. I hope the House will not delay in coming to a decision, and that it will support the Government in the proposal.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 243; Noes,141.

Division No. 96.]
AYES.
[7.58 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Fermoy, Lord
Malone, Major P. B.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Finburgh, S.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Apsley, Lord
Ford, Sir P. J.
Margesson, Capt. D.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Willrid W.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Atkinson, C.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Meller, R. J.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Merriman, F. B.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Ganzonl, Sir John
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Gates, Percy
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Barnston, Major sir Harry
Goff, Sir Park
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Grace, John
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Berry, Sir George 
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Nelson, Sir Frank


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Blundell, F. N.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Penny, Frederick George


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grotrian, H. Brent
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Braithwalte, Major A. N.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Perring, Sir William George


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hanbury, C.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Philipson, Mabel


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Hartlngton, Marquess of
Pilditcn, Sir Philip


Buckingham, Sir H.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Bullock, Captain M.
Haslam, Henry C.
Preston, William


Burman, J. B.
Hawke, John Anthony
Price, Major C. W. M.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Radford, E. A.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ralne, W.


Calne, Gordon Hall
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ramsden, E.


Campbell, E. T.
Herbert, S. (York, N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Carver, Major W. H.
Hills, Major John Waller
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Cayzer,Maj. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.S.)
Hilton, Cecil
Remer, J. R.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Remnant, Sir James


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Rentoul, G. S.


Chapman, Sir S.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Christie, J. A.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Clarry, Reginald George
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Clayton, G. C.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Ropner, Major L.


Colfox, Major William Phillips
Hurd, Percy A.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Cooper, A. Duff
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cope, Major William
Jacob, A. E.
Rye, F. G.


Couper, J. B.
Jephcott, A. R.
Salmon, Major I.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putnty)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Kennedy, A. R.(Preston)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Crooke, J. Smedlty (Deritend)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sandon, Lord


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Galnsbro)
Lamb, J. Q.
Savery, S. S.


Cunllffe, Sir Herbert
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. sir Philip
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Dalziel, Sir Davison
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Shepperson, E. W.


Davidson,J.(Hertf'd,Hemel Hempst'd)
Looker, Herbert William
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J.H.
Lougher, Lewis
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lumley, L. R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Smithers, Waldron


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Drewe, C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Duckworth, John
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden,E.)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Storry-Deans, R.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Macintyre, Ian
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Ellis, R. G.
McLean, Major A.
Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.


England, Colonel A.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macquisten, F. A.
Templeton, W. P.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Warrender, Sir Victor
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Thomson, Rt. Hon. sir W. Mitchell-
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wise, Sir Fredric


Tinne, J. A.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Wolmer, Viscount


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Watts, Dr. T.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Wells, S. R.



Waddington, R.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wallace, Captain D. E.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Captain Lord Stanley and Captain




Bowyer.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Sexton, James


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Ammon, Charles George
Hardie, George D.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Attlee, Clement Richard
Harney, E. A.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bllston)
Harris, Percy A.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Baker, Walter
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Sitch, Charles H.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Smillie, Robert


Batey, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bondfield, Margaret
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Snell, Harry


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Briant, Frank
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Broad, F. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Stamford, T. W.


Bromfield, William
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montroce)
Stephen, Campbell


Bromley, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Strauss, E. A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sullivan, Joseph


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sutton, J. E.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Taylor, R. A.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Clowes, S.
Kennedy, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cluse, W. S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Townend, A. E.


Connolly, M.
Kirkwood, D.
Varley, Frank B.


Cove, W. G.
Lansbury, George
Viant, S. P


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lawrence, Susan
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lee, F.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Dalton, Hugh
Lowth, T.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda.)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lunn, William
Webb Rt. Hon. Sidney


Day, Colonel Harry
Mackinder, W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Dennison, R.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Westwood, J.


Duncan, C.
March, S.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Dunnico, H.
Montague, Frederick
Whiteley, W.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Morris, R. H.
Wiggins, William Martin


Fenby, T. D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Murnin, H.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Gardner, J. P.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Gibbins, Joseph
Owen, Major G.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gillett, George M.
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Gosling, Harry
Paling, W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, Walter


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wright, W.


Greenall, T.
Potts, John S.



Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfel, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Riley, Ben
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. A.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ritson, J.
Barnes


Groves, T.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)



Grundy, T. W.
Scurr, John



Tenth Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for one word of explanation of why the Excise duty differs in amount from the Customs duty? Surely we are not supposed to be giving any protection? The amount is so small—it comes to 2d. on 1,000 containers of matches, for example—that there would hardly be protection, and why, therefore, should we complicate matters by having different rates for the Excise and for the Customs?

Mr. McNEILL: This is a small margin which has always existed, and which is intended to cover the costs to which the home manufacturer is put owing to his dealing in a dutiable article, and having to submit to the Regulations of the Excise Department, and the holding up for a certain time of his capital when his material is dutiable.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 134.

Division No. 97.]
AYES.
[8.10 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Perring, Sir William George


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Goff, Sir Park
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Gower, Sir Robert
Pilcher, G.


Apsley, Lord
Grace, John
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Atkinson, C.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Preston, William


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Price, Major C. W. M.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Grotrian, H. Brent
Radford, E. A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Raine, W.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Ramsden, E.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Hanbury, C.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hartington, Marquess of
Remer, J. R.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Remnant, Sir James


Blundell, F. N.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rentoul, G. S.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Haslam, Henry C.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hawke, John Anthony
Rice, sir Frederick


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Herbert, S.(York, N. R.,Scar. & Wh'by)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hills, Major John Walter
Ropner, Major L.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Hilton, Cecil
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hogg, Rt. Hon.Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Rye, F. G.


Bullock, Captain M.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Salmon, Major I.


Burman, J. B.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Calne, Gordon Hall
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Sandon, Lord


Campbell, E. T.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavt D.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Savery, S. S.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Hurd, Percy A.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Shepperson, E. W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Jacob, A. E.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Chapman, Sir S.
Jephcott, A. R.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n t & Kinc'dlne,'C.)


Christie, J. A.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Kidd, J. (Linllthgow)
Smithers, Waldron


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Somerville, A. A.(Windsor)


Clarry, Reginald George
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Clayton, G. C.
Lamb, J. Q.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden,E.)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Lanc Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Storry-Deans, R.


Cooper, A. Duff
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Strauss, E. A.


Cope, Major William
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Steatfeild, Captain S. R.


Couper, J. B.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Stuart, Crichtori-, Lord C.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Looker, Herbert William
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Lougher, Lewis
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Templeton, W. P.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lumley, L. R.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Galnsbro)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cunilffe, Sir Herbert
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Tinne, J. A.


Dalziel, Sir Davison
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davidson,J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Maclntyre, Ian
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
McLean, Major A.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Waddington, R.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Warrender, Sir Victor


Drewe, C.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Duckworth John
Malone, Major P. B.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Watts, Dr. T.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Meller, R. J.
Wells, S. R.


Ellis, R. G.
Merriman, F. B.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


England, Colonel A.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
wise, Sir Fredric


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wolmer, Viscount


Fermoy, Lord
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Finburgh, S.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Newton, Sir D. G. C (Cambridge)



Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Captain Lord Stanley and Captain


Ganzonl, Sir John
Penny, Frederick George
Margesson.


Gates, Percy
Perkins, Colonel E. K.





Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Sexton, James


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, George D.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harney, E. A.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayday, Arthur
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Baker, Walter
Hayes, John Henry
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph 
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smillie, Robert


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Bondfield, Margaret
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Snell, Harry


Briant, Frank
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Bromfield, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sullivan, Joseph


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sutton, J. E.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Taylor, R. A.


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W, T.
Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Clowes, S.
Kennedy, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cluse, W. S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thurtle, Ernest


Connolly, M.
Kirkwood, D.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, W. G.
Lansbury, George
Townend, A. E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lawrence, Susan
Varley, Frank B.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lee, F.
Viant, S. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Lowth, T.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lunn, William
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Day, Colonel Harry
Mackinder, W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dennison, R.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Duncan, C.
March, S.
Wellock, Wilfred


Dunnico, H.
Montague, Frederick
West wood, J.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty)
Morris, R. H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Fenby, T. D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Whiteley, W.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Murnin, H.
Wiggins, William Martin


Gardner, J. P.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gibbins, Joseph
Owen, Major G.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Gillett, George M
Palin, John Henry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gosling, Harry
Paling, W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Pethick- Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Windsor, Walter


Greenall, T.
Potts John S.
Wright, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Riley, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, T.
Ritson, J.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. A.


Grundy. T. W.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Elland)
Barnes.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Scurr, John

It being a quarter past Eight of the Clock, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No.4.

ACCIDENTS IN MINES.

Mr. GEORGE HIRST: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the heavy loss of life and the large number of non-fatal accidents in mines, and regrets the failure of the Government to give effect to repeated pledges that every possible step would be taken without delay, whether by legislation or otherwise, to secure the fullest protection to those engaged in this dangerous industry.
This Motion is not new to the House. It has been brought forward on three or four occasions to my knowledge and it may be well, at the outset, to refer back to the year 1923, when the Motion was brought forward by the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Barker). He went into all the facts connected with accidents in mines and pressed upon the Secretary for
Mines the need that something should be done with a view to the better regulation of mines in this respect. Promises were made at that time, but nothing has been done. Again the question was raised in 1924 and a similar Motion was brought up by me in 1925, and the same promise was given by the Secretary for Mines in 1925 as that which was given to the hon. Member for Abertillery in 1923. Nothing, however, has been done in connection with these Motions. I do not know of any new Regulation or any new Order which has been brought into operation. At the time the Motion was introduced in 1925 there occurred a terrible disaster caused by an inrush of water into the Scotswood pit at Newcastle. We said we should want to know when that inquiry took place, whether some means could not be brought into operation to prevent boring where people were working and where it might be expected that there would be some force of water out of old workings. I do not know that
anything was done, but the result of the inquest and the inquiry simply was that the men concerned had accidentally lost their lives by an inrush of water. One would imagine when Motions of this description had been introduced from time to time and when statements had been made bringing the facts before the Government, that they would do all in their power to introduce some Regulations to minimise accidents in mines. Following on that disaster, however, we found that at Garforth, in Yorkshire, there was another inrush of water into a mine. Then there was a further disaster which happened in Wales, but on which I shall not attempt to dilate, because I think some of the Welsh Members will be able to get into the Debate and they will deal with it. Nothing has been done as far as we can discover to prevent a recurrence of these accidents. Only a fortnight ago a terrible disaster occurred in Yorkshire at Wharncliffe Woodmoor. That was in connection with the cutting of a cable where three men lost their lives and some 12 or 14 lives were jeopardised and the men were only saved after suffering from the fumes caused by the burning of the cable. This cable, we are told, was a bare cable running for more than a mile, but when the men went into that level to work they covered the cable over temporarily with timber. They fired their shots and when the dirt fell it cut the cable and the cable fused and these men lost their lives. We suggest that an inquiry should be made into these circumstances. Probably there are some very serious questions which could be asked.
These accidents are taking place day after day, but nothing appears to be done, in order to bring together the people who are to some extent responsible in these matters and holding an inquiry. If they were called together and if a searching inquiry were made we should be satisfied that something had been done. I only read this morning about another sad accident at the Mickleton Main Colliery in my own division where two men have been killed by a fall of roof and two or three more seriously injured. We contend that this is a very important question and should be dealt with very seriously. I have been looking over the figures with reference to accidents in mines and particularly some figures that
were given in reply to a question put to the Secretary for Mines by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). I have made a comparison between the number of accidents which occurred during the time when the men were working seven hours a day and the number of accidents which occurred when they were working eight hours a day, and I find that the number of accidents under the eight-hour system is tremendously larger than the number under the seven-hours system. The Prime Minister when he introduced his famous Eight Hours Act was told that it would lead to more accidents in the mines. The answer given by the Secretary for Mines to which I have referred shows that this has proved to be the case. Working out the averages of fatal accidents during the eight-hours system and the seven-hours system over a number of years, we find that the rate works out at 260 more deaths per year under the eight-hours system than under the seven-hours system. A question was asked of the Secretary for Mines by the hon. Member for the Rother Valley (Mr. Grundy), and the reply received was that there had been 306 deaths and 1,214 persons had been seriously injured through accidents in coal mines in the first three months of 1926 under the seven-hours rule. The corresponding figures for the first three months of 1927 were 324 killed and 1,291 seriously injured. That means that as far as the first three months of this year were concerned there were 20 more deaths under the eight-hours system than occurred in the first three months of 1926 under the seven-hours system. In the first three months of 1926 the non-fatal accidents were 1,214 and in the first three months of 1927, 1,291, so that there were 80 more non-fatal accidents in the first three months under the eight-hours rule than in the first three months under the seven-hours rule. That is the way things have been going, yet nothing seems to have been done. The purpose of this Debate is to draw the attention of the Mines Department to the fact that something ought to be done to prevent the terrible accidents that occur from time to time. I made several suggestions, in 1925, when the Motion was before the House as to steps that it might be advisable to take, and which we think the Mines Department ought to take.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in introducing his Budget, told us in his economy stunt that he was going to do away with the Mines Department. It is absolutely ridiculous for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to suggest that that Department should be abolished, seeing that it is connected with an industry so dangerous as mining. We hope that he will leave that Department alone and that instead of doing away with it he will add to it more people who have direct knowledge of the working of mines, so that they will be able to use their influence with the Department and be able to minimise accidents to a great extent. One of the things which I suggested was that more shafts should be sunk. At the present time, mines are worked where men have to walk from 2 to 3 and 4 miles from the shaft bottom to the working face. There is nothing in the Mines Act to prevent any manager or owner from continuing that state of things. When one considers that a man may have to walk 2, 3 or 4 miles to his working it must be evident that it takes the work out of him and that it does him more harm to travel in this way to his work than the work harms him when he gets to the coal face. When he has finished his work he has to battle his way back to the pit bottom, 2, 3 or 4 miles away, as the case may be. We say that more shafts ought to be sunk nearer together in order to prevent these long walks underground between the working places and the pit bottom.
The sinking of more shafts would reduce the haulage costs, because it would not be necessary to convey the coal from the coal face 2, 3 or 4 miles to the bottom of the shaft. The sinking of new shafts would also have a tendency to reduce accidents. It would also improve the ventilation and improve the health of the miners. It would also reduce the risk of explosion, for the simple reason that when a miner has to go 2, 3 or 4 miles to his work, the ventilation before it has a chance of getting round to the working becomes very heated and it is more like steam than the fresh air which the miner would have if the pit was properly ventilated. Accidents from falls of roof and sides are numerous, but if the shafts were sunk much closer together and it was not necessary to travel such long distances under
ground it would be possible to pack the walls and make them solid, thereby stopping the accumulation of gas in the sides. At the present time, such accumulations are liable to cause explosion. Moreover, the dirt could be taken into the old levels instead of being sent down into the pits, and that would have a tendency to prevent the falls which take place. I will not pursue the subject further, because there are three or four hon. Members on this side who wish to speak, and an Amendment is to be moved from the other side, and we want to hear what is to be said by those hon. Members who wish to cut out of the Motion the very words which we wish to retain. In this business everybody ought to do the best they possibly can with a view to preventing the increase of fatal and nonfatal accidents. We know that from time to time these disasters are taking place, and that practically nothing has been done for the last two or three years as far as Rules, Acts and Orders are concerned. We ask the House to take this question seriously into consideration and to pass the Motion to-night so that the Ministry can set to work at once to deal with these things.

Mr. GRUNDY: I beg to second the Motion.
I am glad that we have another opportunity of raising this question. I had the honour of seconding the Motion two years ago. On that occasion we pointed out the terrible catastrophe that had occurred at the Montague Pit in Northumberland, and to-day we have to point out that there has been another inrush of water at the same pit and that one man has lost his life and 10 men have very narrowly escaped with their lives. We ask the Secretary for Mines to say what steps have been taken to deal with accumulations of water in the old workings at the Scotswood Colliery. Does it not appear strange after a terrible disaster of this kind, that within two years a similar disaster occurs, with the result I have mentioned. The toll of life and limb in the mines still goes on. We have the risk of fire, water, gas, explosion and falling roofs. Those dangers are there all the time. Ever since the Members of Parliament for mining constituencies have been returned to this House they have raised this question, not in a party spirit but with the
sole object of getting the Government to do something to lessen the number of fatalities. We have had an inrush of water at the Garforth Pit in Yorkshire, where the men at the risk of their lives went waist deep to rescue the ponies. In addition we have the fire at Wharncliffe Woodmore, which was caused by a cable. If a miner had taken a match in his pocket in that mine he would have been prosecuted and punished severely, yet a cable could stand there and there seems to be no doubt that that cable caused the fire in that pit. We say definitely that if these cables have to be carried into the mines—and they never ought to be carried to the length they are into the mines—they ought to be covered underground, so that at least it might mitigate fires which arise similar to that one in Wharncliffe Woodmore. Listen to what one man who was rescued said:
The heat was terrific, and we were nearly roasted alive. The roof was burning and cracking all the time. It would have been impossible for us to escape, even if we had possessed the strength to stagger to safety. I thought my time was come. I was being slowly suffocated, and when the rescue party arrived I was barely conscious.
If we speak with warmth, surely there is some excuse. We live amongst these people, and know the sorrow brought about by these accidents. In answer to a question I put to the Secretary for Mines the other day, in addition to the figures given by the previous speaker, he said that the corresponding figures for the first three months of 1927 were increased by the serious disasters at Cwm and Bilsthorpe. But these serious disasters occur nearly every year. You have all the accumulated knowledge; you have the expert knowledge, and all the evidence given at these inquiries, and yet, since 1911, there has been no legislation in this House with the intention of giving additional safety for these men who work in this dangerous occupation. In view of these figures, which prove a greater number of serious accidents in the first three months of this year, one might ask the Secretary for Mines if he does not think that the lengthening of the hours of the miner has not had something to do with this increased rate? If it has, I say, again, it justifies all the strong language that has been used
by the representatives of the miners in this House. Nothing, in my opinion, can be said that is too strong. It ought to be "Safety first." We put that on the omnibuses, but I am rather afraid it is not always carried out in our mines. I am not going to blame the managers, who are brave men, the under-managers or deputies, but I am asking if these people have the safety they ought to have. We know something in respect of this that makes us say these men ought to have greater security of tenure. Profits and dividends ought not to rule the working of a mine; it should be "Safety first."
I, really, wanted to ask one or two questions, and to point out another serious side in the miners' calling. We have some 3,000 pits. Have we sufficient inspectors to inspect those pits? What is the number of inspections that might be made at the collieries by the inspectors? When inspection has been made, is it not possible to call in consultation, representatives of the men and the owners? Is it not possible to set up a consultative council to deal with the whole of the reports, consisting of men's representatives, coalowners and mine inspectors, so that at least there can be something gleaned from this accumulated evidence and knowledge which might lead to a reduction in these accidents? There is one other phase I want to mention. What is being done with regard to nvstagmus, for which there are startling figures? A committee of the Medical Research Council reported in 1922–23 that the chief cause of the disease was insufficient illumination, and that the cases severe enough to cause disablement could by degrees be entirely prevented by improving the standard of lighting.
The miners' representatives here know what nystagmus is. From 1905 to 1912 there were 1,760 cases; in 1913, 4,550; in 1920, 7,028; in 1921, 6,717; in 1922, 9,155; in 1923, 11,142; in 1924, 10,906; and in 1925, 11,334. It has increased enormously, and greater attention ought to be given to this subject, and something ought to be done. If it be possible by any means, no matter at what cost, these cases of nystagmus ought to be decreased. The Medical Research Council has said that by degrees this industrial disease could be eradicated. There is
only one class of employment that has a greater fatality rate than we have. In 1922, fatalities in mines amounted to .95; in shipping, it was 1.33. In 1923, the figure was 1.06 against 1.14 for shipping; and in 1924, it was 1.05 against 1.39 for shipping. If I ran through the rest, it would be seen what our fatalities amount to in comparison with any other industry. I come to accidents. The non-fatal accidents in mines in 1922 were 160.56. In shipping they were 18.66. In 1923, nonfatal accidents in mines were 177.041. In shipping they were 1.791. The average of non-fatal accidents in the mines was a startling figure compared with that of any other industry. Accidents in mines are eight times as many as in shipping, twice as many as in docks, and five times the average of factories, docks, quarries, constructional works and railways taken together.
Therefore, if in pleading here at any time we happen to use language that sounds harsh, we ought to be forgiven. Here is the terrible toll and the appalling loss of life that goes on year by year. It appears to us, rightly or wrongly, that little, if anything is being done by the Department. We do not want to lose the Department, but we are asking that the Department should at least justify its existence. We ask the Secretary for Mines, as the responsible head of the Department, at least to give us to-night something that we may regard as a serious attempt to lessen fatalities. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will also say something in regard to nystagmus cases. Year by year we bring forward this Motion from higher motives than political motives. We bring it forward with a, sincere desire to see an improvement in the mines. If longer hours of work are responsible for these accident figures, those who brought about those longer hours ought to be eternally ashamed of themselves. If lower wages and the lessened stamina of our men have anything to do with the matter, the country ought to be ashamed. Outside all that, we ask that at least the Secretary for Mines will regard us as serious men, whose lives have been spent in the pit and who know this subject from A to Z. We are not men who have learned the lesson outside the pit. We have been in the pits from boyhood to
manhood, and we ask that the Government should take any action at any cost to protect the life and limb of the miners of the country.

Mr. R. HUDSON: I beg to move, in line 2, to leave out from the word "mines" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
but recognises that steady progress is being made towards the attainment of safer conditions by means of regulation, research, inquiry, and inspection, as a result of which the safety of mining in the country compares on the whole very favourably with that in other countries.
I would like to preface my remarks by saying that I think it is distinctly unfortunate, to say the least, that such an Amendment should have to be moved from these benches to such a Motion. It is a great pity that the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. G. Hirst) did not follow the example that he set two years ago by altering the wording of his Resolution at the last moment. I do not think it is right or proper that party capital should be made out of a subject which affects the lives and happiness of so many of our fellow men engaged in one of the main industries of the country. I go further and say that I do not believe the hon. Member is doing himself or his party, or the men on whose behalf he claims to speak, any good by making, or attempting to make, this a party question, and thereby preventing or impeding the dispassionate inquiry which otherwise we would all desire. I do not propose to follow the hon. Member's example but I want to preface my main remarks by referring to one statement that he made. That is in relation to the inference to be drawn from the answer which was returned by the Secretary for Mines to a question put by an hon. Member opposite. The hon. Member for Wentworth said that the number of fatal accidents was tremendously larger in the first three months of this year than in the corresponding period of last year. The actual figures are 324 this year and 306 last year.

Mr. G. HIRST: The number of accidents was higher during the time that they were working eight hours than when they were working seven hours. I gave the question and the answer of the Minister, that for the first three months in last year the accidents were 306 and for the first three months of this year, under the eight hours system, they were 324. The figures are
higher. I did not say "tremendously higher," but if you carry the year through you will find that they are.

Mr. HUDSON: I am not going to argue about the matter now, because the OFFICIAL REPORT will show what is the difference between us. The figures are 324 for this year and 306 for last year. I am endeavouring not to bring party passion into this matter. This year we have unfortunately had two very serious accidents, and I am certain that no one, whatever his party prejudices may be, would suggest that those particular accidents are in any way connected with the Eight Hours Act or with the increase in that particular area of the hours of working, because in any case they did not occur in one of the later hours of working but in one of the earlier. If it is legitimate to compare short periods hon. Members must at least admit a deduction for those two exceptional accidents, and that gives you the result that under the Eight Hours Act the number of fatal accidents was 264 this year as against 306 last year. As a matter of fact you cannot prove anything one way or the other. You cannot prove that those disasters were in any way due to the Eight Hours Act. As for the other figures that the hon. Member quoted, namely, that there were 260 more deaths per year when working under the Eight Hours Act, as he knows more than half the difference was due to accidents caused by coal dust, and since the amended Regulations regarding stone dust have been in force these accidents have disappeared.
I cannot claim such a technical and expert knowledge of the mining industry as some hon. Members of this House. I can at least claim that this Debate is of interest to me, because I am the representative of a mining area which in the past has had a melancholy notoriety for great disasters. When we were discussing this question two years ago, we were under the shadow of the terrible disaster in Northumberland, which has been referred to by the hon. Member opposite, but to-day no such disaster is oppressing our thoughts. It is very desirable that this Debate should take place, if only to remind the public of the hazards of the mining industry. It is quite clear that the ordinary individual, when he puts his lump of coal on the
domestic fire, fails to remember that, in spite of all the Regulations, the law and everything being done to minimise the hazards of the industry, the miner still pursues his calling under circumstances of considerable discomfort, constant danger, and often is very inadequately paid. He does not realise that the toll of fatal accidents is still over the 1,000 mark and the non-fatal accidents approach nearly 200,000.
We are invited in the first sentences of this Motion to deplore these facts, but I think it is quite unnecessary to ask us to do any such thing, because the inevitable response will come before the question is put. We are concerned, not only to deplore these facts, but also to ascertain whether or not this state of affairs can be remedied, and to inquire whether things are better now than they were in former years; whether any decrease has taken place in the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents; what prospects there are of accelerating that decrease; and what steps we can take to facilitate that acceleration. Whenever one reads the annual reports of the Inspectors of Mines, one must always be depressed by their harping year after year on one topic, and that is the avoidability of so many of these accidents. But in spite of all this, we have the same story cropping up again and again. After we have looked at the most depressing side of this subject, have we no ground for hope? If we compare the conditions in this country with those abroad, are we better off, or can we learn any lessons from the state of things existing abroad? The hon. Member who seconded this Motion last year urged that we might learn some lessons from the conditions abroad, but are those conditions any better than they are in this country?
I have looked up in one of the reports the figures of the mean annual death rate for two periods of ten years, namely, 1903 to 1912, and 1913 to 1922. In Great Britain the percentage was 1.3 in the first period and 1.2 in the second period; in the United States the percentage was 5.1 in the first period and 4.3 in the second period; in Belgium, 1.0 and 1.2; in the Netherlands, 1.8 and 1.7; and in Germany, 2.1 and 2.8. These figures apply to the same period. The only country which has a less death rate than ours in this respect is France, where it is 1.0. If you examine our figures you
9.0 p.m.
still find that there has been a sensible improvement. There were fewer people killed in 1925 than in 1924, and if you take the rate per 100,000 man shifts worked between 1922 and 1925 you will find that it has fallen from 66.3 to 63.9. On those figures I think we can say that there has been a slight improvement, although it is perhaps not a very satisfactory diminution. The question is, are we taking all possible measures and steps to diminish those figures? I think we really ought to inquire whether everything has been done in regard to regulation and research and inquiry, and above all, education, in order to minimise those rates. I think that if the question is regarded dispassionately hon. Members must agree that never in our history has so much been done before to minimise danger in mines as is being done at the present moment. Never during the last ten years has so much been done to deal with the real basic problems of industry as they affect the health, efficiency, and the comfort of the individual worker. The Institute of Industrial Psychology, the Medical Research Council, the Industrial Fatigue Research Board, the Safety in Mines Research Board, and other organisations too numerous to mention are all carrying on an intensive campaign. An immense amount of information is being gathered from other industries which is applicable to coalmines. The results of investigations into the diminished output and increased liability to accidents to munition workers, open hearth smelters, and rolling mill men have caused a similar investigation to be made into the conditions in hot and deep mines. These investigations have shown the importance of ventilation, and the subject is being intensively studied by a committee of the Institution of Mining Engineers, and when the engineering problems involved have been solved, we may anticipate a corresponding diminution in the accident rate.
The importance to the country as a whole of those discoveries needs no emphasising when you consider the extent to which our shallower seams are being gradually worked out. There are some interesting results showing the human factor as the cause of accidents from which it appears that in any particular group of men which you like to take
there are certain individuals among them whose liability to accidents is greater than in the case of others. They do not, apparently, differ externally from any of the rest of us, but all of us know from our own experience that some people have "butter fingers," and are more liable to accidents than others. Accidents to such people in any factory or workshop increase the accident rate at that particular establishment, and, if means could be devised of discovering them at an early age and putting them to jobs of less danger, it is obvious that the accident rate would decrease, and the total number of accidents in mines would decrease correspondingly.
Let it never be forgotten—and I do not need to remind hon. Members opposite of this fact—that it is not the few big accidents that strike public opinion that matter so much; it is the daily fatality, the daily accident, that really brings sorrow to wife, mother, or fatherless children, or, too often, a crippled miner. It is those that we want to avoid even more than the spectacular accidents that occur from time to time. And not only that, but the economic results of these accidents are a serious drain on the industry and a serious reason for trying to eliminate them. I forget exactly where I saw the figures, but I saw an estimate of the cost of compensation for accidents—and most people will agree that the compensation is not always adequate. It was estimated that it imposes a cost of something over 3d. on every ton of coal raised in this country. A great deal has been done by way of the "Safety First" movement, but there again education is sadly needed, and the need for it is strikingly illustrated in the report of the Inspector for the Northern Division, which includes my own constituency. Speaking of the year 1925, he says that of the deaths caused during that year by explosives, 67 per cent., I think it was, were due to clear breaches of the regulations; that 61 per cent. of the nonfatal cases were due to the same cause, and that 30 per cent. of the remainder could have been avoided by the exercise of due caution. [Interruption.] He is not speaking exclusively of the men but is speaking of caution all round. The seven years' figures are worse still. Ninety per cent. of the fatal accidents, and 80 per cent. of the non-fatal accidents, were due, he says, to breaches in
one way or another of the Explosives in Coal Mines Orders. To me that represents a situation most appalling to contemplate.
In another passage, the same Chief Inspector—[Interruption.] I am not trying to take any unfair advantage; hon. Members can go and look at the Report in the Library. In another passage he deplores the lack of any real, organised co-operation in safety matters between owners and workmen. There is, he says, a tendency on the part of the workers to expect all action for protection to come from the official side— [Interruption.] These are not my words; they are the words of the inspector. I venture to think that they strongly bear out what I said at the beginning of my speech, namely, that it is a great pity that hon. Members opposite insist on making this a party question. They would be very much better employed in facilitating and upholding the work of these inspectors in trying to persuade the men of that. They forget, he says, that they themselves must always be the chief movers if the majority of avoidable accidents are to be prevented. Finally, let me remind hon. Members opposite that in the Debate of 1925 they put forward, as one of the suggestions for improving matters and avoiding the recurrence of disasters such as we were then discussing, that the Secretary for Mines should take steps to get hold of all the old pre-1872 plans. If they will take the trouble to read this Report for the year 1925, they will see the action that was taken on that suggestion, and they will see that it was to a large extent successful, for a great number of these plans have been deposited, and considerable work is being done in the way of recording them, although it is not yet complete. That, surely, disposes of the suggestion that has been made to-day that nothing came out of the Debate two years ago. It has also been said that no action has been taken by way of legislation to assist in the prevention of accidents, but I venture to think that our action in passing the Mining Industry Act last year, and in increasing the amount of money available for the Welfare Fund, cannot fail, by improving the general physique and the general well-being of the men engaged
in the industry, to have its results in diminishing the number of accidents. It stands to reason that it must. I hope I have succeeded in showing that there is a steady progress. A great deal remains to be done. The number of accidents still remains, and must remain, a blot on our industrial civilisation. I am perfectly certain that hon. Members in all quarters of the House are earnest and sincere in their desire to see those conditions ameliorated, and to do everything that is possible to see that steps should be taken to improve these matters. I would appeal sincerely to my hon. Friend who moved this Resolution, as to whether he could not see his way to accept our Amendment, so that this Resolution, on so grave and serious a matter, might go through unanimously, instead of being divided upon and being made the subject of party conflict.

Mr. CLARRY: I beg to second the Amendment.
I should like to supplement the remark of my hon. Friend that there would have been no need for us to move an Amendment to this Motion if the hon. Member who moved it had taken the same attitude this year that he took in 1925: but we do take exception to his blaming the Government in ally respect for accidents in mines. That is the reason why we have brought forward this Amendment. I can only think that in 1925 the hon. Member had in mind that, the year before, a Socialist Government was in office, and that it would hardly do to blame the failure of the Government to take any steps that might have been taken. Both the Mover and the Seconder of the Resolution have endeavoured in their speeches to cast some reflection, though not by any direct challenge, on the eight-hour shift principle which is now in force, suggesting that it is responsible for some of the increase in accidents which they say has taken place recently. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I would like to remind the Mover of the Resolution that in 1925 he intimated to this House that, during the operation of the seven-hour shift, accidents, fatal and non-fatal, had accumulated all along the line. If they can accumulate under a seven-hour shift, how does he make out that they can now accumulate under an eight-hour shift? As a matter of fact, whether it is seven
hours or eight hours has no bearing whatever on the question of accidents. [An HON. MEMBER: "You ought to have been down a mine!"] I have been down mines as much as the hon. Member.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): I really must remind hon. Members that the Debate is useless unless it is conducted in an orderly manner and all points of view can be expressed.

Mr. CLARRY: It has been proved time and again that accidents happen where the human element arises, in the third and fourth hour of the shift. Of course, if it is a question of explosion, in which the human element does not arise, the question of a seven-hour or eight-hour shift does not arise either. It is, therefore, rather a pity that it has been introduced to-night. When hon. Members endeavour to bring in this question of eight-hour shifts in relation to accidents in mines, we can, only put one interpretation upon it, namely, that they are endeavouring to make some small political capital out of it. It is a very great pity that in a grave matter like this, in which we sympathise no less than Members on the other side of the House and the whole country, these accidents should be exploited for political purposes. We are all trying with the same object of eliminating as far as possible both fatal and non-fatal accidents in mines.
One hon. Member called attention to the question of safety lamps, and said nothing had been done in this respect. I should like to refer him to page 60 of the Fifth Annual Report of the Secretary for Mines, in which he will see that something considerable has been done with regard to safety lamps. There has been another design adopted, in accordance with certain findings and decisions arrived at, and electric lamps are also being more widely used. With reference to the total number of fatal accidents, it certainly is a very serious matter, and no one wishes in any way to minimise the seriousness of it, but I am afraid that in their enthusiasm some hon. Members opposite rather exaggerate and stress it because they do not realise that there is no less a number of fatal accidents in the streets of London than in the mines of Great Britain. I do not make that as a direct comparison, but
hon. Members do not take into consideration the accidents that occur in other directions than in mines.

Mr. MONTAGUE: There were 10,000 Chinese drowned the other day.

Mr. CLARRY: Some of your friends, I expect. Sir Richard Redmayne, in his evidence before the Sankey Commission, said that British mines were second to none in the steps that are taken with regard to safety, and my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. R. Hudson) has given comparisons of the fatal accidents in other countries, in which it is shown that there is only one country that is able to get lower than we are, and that is one of the reasons why we cannot subscribe to any blame being put on the Government in respect of that matter. It was shown before the Royal Commission that enormous progress had been made in arriving at greater safety in the mines and eliminating risks over a vast period. In some cases the risks have been eliminated down to nine-tenths of what they were in a previous period. That is a very important step, and those steps are continuing. I have in my hand a preliminary statement of the Mines Department for 1926. I am aware that 1926 affords no comparison with any other year, because of the stoppage, but it gives the cause of accidents, which is a very important factor, and it shows that more than half of them are due to falls of ground. Falls of ground are matters which cannot be prevented by passing an Act of Parliament. Nature works every hour of the 24, whether Acts of Parliament are passed or not, and I am sorry to say that half the accidents from falls of ground are due to the human element itself, and unless the human element is cut out it is no good passing Acts of Parliament and hoping you are going to eliminate a large number of these accidents.
Explosions and fire-damp represent a comparatively small proportion, which has been reduced to an enormous extent by research work. The human element again enters very largely into shaft accidents and haulage accidents. Out of the total accidents both underground and on the surface of 640 in 1920, 332 were due to falls of ground. These Resolutions are brought forward usually for other
purposes and I know that hon. Members appreciate that there is a very big difference between legislation and administration. One can legislate but it will not have the slightest effect unless that legislation is administered and carried out by all concerned. [Interruption.] If that is so why do you criticise the failure of the Government to legislate? I think we should refer the matter back to the mines and ask them, whether masters or men, to administer to the best of their ability, having regard to safety of the person and the property, the law such as it is and take any further steps for the safety of those concerned in this industry.
Another matter that hon. Members seem to have lost sight of is the existence of a very powerful and imposing Safety in Mines Research Board, which is doing an enormous amount of good work. Money is allocated to the Board to operate and they are also co-operating with the United States and getting a good deal of valuable information from that source. In addition to that, grants are made to individuals and organisations who are carrying on certain other research work. I have summarised one or two points. Their programme, which is very extensive and which would take half an hour to read out, comprises certain investigations now in progress. Under the heading of Ignition of Coal Dust there are 18 sub-sections in which matters are being investigated at present. On the subject of safety lamps there are six sub-sections also being dealt with. In connection with firedamp there are 15 separate headings now being investigated in progress. All this research work covers the very point of the Motion. The work is going on to the best of the ability of those who can deal with it. I do not think there is any section of the community which would not do everything in its power to render the mines safer in working. Science and human ingenuity are hard at work in every direction all the time to secure safety first in the mines.

Mr. EVAN DAVIES: I rise to support the Motion for a very special reason. I have been rather surprised at the two speeches to which we have just listened. The hon. Members who have brought forward the Amendment have
made it perfectly clear, especially to those who have some experience, that they have simply been skirting the subject and have made no attempt to deal with the fundamentals which have some connection with accidents in mines, and they have made it very clear to all of us that they have never worked in mines and have very little experience of mining operations and they have been dealing with the question from a superficial and artificial point of view. I hope the House will grant me the indulgence of departing a little from the usual procedure, because I think the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. R. Hudson) has forgotten that there has been a terrible calamity in the coalfield so recently as two months ago which happened close to my own door. It has been said that this is a human question and the human element comes into it. I appreciate the point that the human element comes into a subject of this kind, but not exactly in the same manner and form as the hon. Member referred to it. The human element comes into the question of accidents in mines because it is a question of safety as against finance. There can be no doubt that, if all the precautions which could be taken were taken, if there were not the great anxiety for dividends that there has been, and if everything that could be done were done the accidents could be reduced considerably. I am not suggesting that it is possible to eliminate all accidents in mines. I do not think any person outside a madhouse would make such a statement. Explosions will take place in the mines; there will be falls of roofs, but not in the sense to which the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Clarry) referred. You would imagine from his statement that it was according to an act of God or nature that falls of roofs must take place and men must be under each particular fall. The falls of roofs will take place, but many of them which take place underground could be, prevented if the necessary expenditure were incurred to protect them and put in the necessary timber. It is all a question of expense.
I will not refer any further to the two speeches which have been made, but I should like to deal—and I am sure the House will be sympathetic to what I have to say—with the experience we had recently at Cwm. When I heard of this particular explosion, and I saw placarded
all over the London streets that a disaster had taken place in the Welsh coalfields, it was the farthest thing from my mind that it was possible to have such an explosion in the area from which I come. We have been working collieries in that particular area for the last 60 or 70 years. The colliery in which the explosion took place has been worked for the last 40 years. We have been working in that particular area from the outcrops down the valley, and from the outcrops to this particular colliery it is a distance of five miles. The coal seams have been worked near to the outcrops, and we had thought that by this time we had practically extracted the dangerous elements from the coal, and that obnoxious gases and so forth would be practically unknown, because the seams were not considered to be of a very foul nature. From that particular point down the valleys, about six miles, you come across a freak of nature which alters the geographical formation, and in this particular area we thought we were practically immune from the possibility of a colliery disaster of this particular character.
I want to assure the House that, if this disaster had taken place during the day shift instead of the night shift, undoubtedly there would have been about 300 men killed in this particular explosion, because the blast was of a terrific character. I am convinced there is nobody—in the capitalist class or anywhere else—who could be so diabolical as to wish to see a calamity of this kind take place. We on this side have our political point of view, but I am sure everybody, on all sides, is extremely sympathetic in the case of a disaster of this kind. We have been working this area for a considerable time. I have been a mining agent for many years, and have been connected with the district for the last 25 years. We have been operating it to the best of our ability, and educating our own folk to try to see that they do not work in danger and to keep the collieries as safe as possible. I want to make one statement. I believe that the last stoppage was indirectly responsible for the explosion. It was indirectly responsible in this way, that the domestic pressure on the home had become such that men, perhaps, were prepared to
work under conditions which they would not tolerate for a single moment if the domestic pressure had not been such as it was.
I am not going to go into any particular point because an inquiry is pending, and I do not wish to suggest any responsibility anywhere, but there can be no doubt that the great cry in the coalfields is to get coal in order to reduce the cost of production and to get as much coal to send into the market to compete with the foreigners. Our people undoubtedly well know that this fact exists. I want to make it perfectly plain to the House that whatever this inquiry may reveal—and I do not profess to be a technician or expert, though I have had about 30 years of practical mining experience and I think I may claim average intelligence—I know one fundamental fact which stands out in this explosion as in every other. There was something in that colliery that ought not to have been there and that was an accumulation of gas which caused the blast to take away 52 lives. It may be a matter of opinion as to whether it was avoidable or unavoidable. I can only say that it is my own conviction that the accumulation of obnoxious gas underground is a preventable thing if the Acts of Parliament already in existence for dealing with the mines are put into operation and are enforced by the management, the men and the Government inspectors who are responsible for work of this class.
In this district we did not expect an explosion because we had dealt with practically the whole of what may be termed the fiery seams. There are five of the seams there. In the particular seam in which the explosion occurred we had thought, as experienced and common sense people, that we had drained away practically all the noxious gases that were likely to be found. When I went into that district I was amazed to find the explosion which had taken place; we thought we were immune from anything of the kind. It shows, perhaps, that owing to our having been free from an explosion for so many years we had become careless, and I am afraid there was some carelessness about this thing. I can assure the House that I witnessed there sights which I do not wish to experience again in the whole of my lifetime. We talk about these things being
necessary and unavoidable periodically, but hon. Members opposite and on this side of the House, if they would go to a colliery disaster, would see heartrending scenes such as I witnessed there, which would move this or any other Government to spend the necessary money to prevent disasters of that kind.
The miner's occupation is different from any other. Not only is the miner in danger of his life during the day but you have that pall hanging over his wife and children throughout the whole of the day when he is there. There is that anxiety of mind as to whether he is coming home safe, and after getting up at five in the morning, you have the wife or the mother thinking of the boy perhaps going to work in the colliery at 14 years of age. The mother of the miner's boy has the same heart as the mother of any hon. Member or other person better situated. These mothers and wives are thinking of their boys and husbands throughout the whole of the day and the mental pressure in the miner's home is obviously greater than in any other particular class of industry. Let the House remember the wages for which the miner is working. I should like to bring this fact home, that the least this country can do is to sec that the miner is relieved of this heavy domestic responsibility which he has to be under to-day in consequence of the low wages. Here the political significance of the question comes in. Hon. Members on the other side say it is an economic necessity. I believe economic laws ought to be made to fit in with human needs and if there is a political disposition in this House to do so, it should be possible to make economics fit in with the human needs of this particular industry.
That was the thing I witnessed when I got home to that tragedy which occurred recently. Let me refer to the little incident of which very much was made by the Press of the country when the Prime Minister visited the scene on the second day. It was unfortunate, from my point of view, that there was a demonstration. I know all the areas of South Wales and I know you will find the level of intelligence among the mining population is as high as that of any other part of the population, and I did not wish that there should be mis
representation of the characteristics or the intelligence of the miners broadcast over the country. Consequently I said that I regretted that the incident had taken place. It was not the time for me, under the shadow of death, to have anything in the nature of a demonstration at that particular moment, and that is my explanation for regretting the incident at the time but I can fully understand it.
We are told that the Government cannot do anything to eliminate these accidents in mines. I am going to bring before the House certain ideas of my own. Being a very practical miner with considerable experience, I am satisfied that with the law as it is, and without any amendment of existing laws, it is possible to get an explosion practically every week throughout the year, and it is really only as a matter of chance that we are saved from having explosions. This sort of thing is encouraged. It is encouraged, for instance, on the economic ground that you must get what is called the conveyor into the coal face in order to bring coal more cheaply to the pit bottom and to the surface in order to compete with the foreigner. I am absolutely against the working of the conveyor system at a coal face which is suitable for the ordinary stall and trolley work. When you work with a conveyor system you have three or four possible dangers. In the working of a conveyor there is the danger of creating sparks. You can also create friction in such a way that the men at the coal face do not understand or hear when there is danger about, and you must have experience as a collier to understand when you are in danger underground. The practical collier can hear when danger is about, but with the conveyor system you create such a noise that it is impossible for him to hear what is going on.
The fundamental question is this. In working with a conveyor you take 100 yards of face in one stretch, instead of under the old system, 10 or 20 yards. The Mines Department has no power to enforce anything in order to obviate this danger, so far as I can see, unless they introduce fresh legislation. There ought to be in every coal face at least two safety roads. Just imagine a body of men working in 100 yards of coal face
with, perhaps, a seam two feet high—boys and men working in the middle of the coal face. If a crash comes, they have to rush to the bottom of the pit to save themselves. In working under a conveyor system you do not fill up the cavities. You leave large areas and allow them to fill themselves by pressure and cracking of the roof or to remain open, with the possibility of a terrific "blast" at any moment. Anyone who understands underground working knows that you have to keep ventilation in progress at the place where men are working. If you have cavities in consequence of not filling up the gaps you leave them open to the possibility of their being filled with noxious gases which may break out at any moment and send all the men into eternity. I should not be at all surprised, at any moment, to hear talk of a "blast" occurring in any part of the South Wales coalfield, or anywhere else. In the interest of economy it is not considered wise to do anything to avoid this possibility. While the industry is being worked in the way that it is, with no unification or organisation, each company competiting in the market against the other and each driving the men as fast as they can and speeding them up in every possible direction, there is the possibility of a "blast" occurring at any time. I am here to tell the House very solemnly and seriously that our civilisation ought to save us from this. That is what the people in the particular colliery where the explosion occurred think. I hope we may never have a repetition of that kind of thing, but I am quite satisfied that unless there is legislation and better administration there is a possibility of an explosion taking place at any time.
I am not a believer in theory and I cannot follow what some of the technicians and experts talk about. Many of our technicians say that it is possible to work in a colliery with 2½ per cent. of gas and be quite safe. That theory ought to be exploded once and for all, whoever the experts may be. We ought to have our collieries perfectly free from gas as far as it is practicable, and where there is a possibility of any gas arising there ought to be a current of air to render the pit safe for men to work in. This sort of thing will go on for all time unless this industry is put under a better
state of organisation and unless there is some unification and a better understanding and the industry can be made to work on an economic basis with the necessary safety for the men. If this industry cannot be worked without men being killed like rats the sooner we turn our attention to some other industry that will be a substitute for this industry the better. The men engaged in the mining industry ought to have as much consideration as those engaged in any other industry. They are working in a most hazardous industry and they are putting as much physical energy into their work as any men I know, and we ought to do all we can to protect them.
Again, you have the electrical appliances in the mines. I think the Mines Department should take this matter up. It is no use telling us that the wiring of the mines is done in a way that is safe for the men. I hold the opinion very strongly that there ought not to be the possibility of explosion in mines caused by a spark from anything. If there is a possibility of an explosion from any of these things, then the mine is not safe to work in under any circumstances or conditions whatever. All these things that are producing sparks—and they do produce sparks—should, as far as possible, be avoided. All those things should be cased, so as to make the mine as safe as possible. I believe that every Member of this House, if it were not for the question of cost, would say, "We will have all these things done," but we are up against the problem of where the money is to come from in order to do them. I have tried to point out as best I can some of the things that might be done. There are many other things that it is possible to do, and there is one very important thing to I which I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Mines.
But first I would like to point out that. with the rest of the people on this side of the House, I deplore the idea that the Mines Department is to be abolished. It gives us the impression, and it gives our people the impression, that the Government, owing to the last dispute in the coal mining industry, are now going to wash their hands of that industry and let the employers and the men fight their battles out in their own way. The Mines Department ought to be strengthened and
better equipped; it ought to have the information ready at hand every time, in order to render the necessary assistance to the people who are working in the mines of this country, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer with his economy stunt prevents it. He agrees to expenditure with a lavish hand in any other direction, but when it is a social service of some benefit to the community, we always find that there is an economy stunt in order to reduce the effectiveness of our social services, so that the money can be expended in other directions, and we are protesting very solemnly against the idea of the abolition of the Mines Department. We ask that there should be an efficient Department, equipped with men and with everything that is necessary, in order, not to interfere less with the mining operations of this country but more. This proposal to abolish the Department is a political stunt on the part of the Government to keep out of the industry altogether. The Government cannot afford to keep out, unless they are going to sacrifice the lives of the people in it, and we say that the Mines Department should have very effective powers to deal with those employers and even with those workpeople who are breaking the law in any shape or form.
One very important thing appeals to my mind. I do not want to try to give any idea as to what I think about ventilation—I hare my own ideas—but there is one very important point. I believe that wherever there is a pair of shafts sunk into the earth for the production of coal, and those two shafts are going to be used for the raising of coal, there should be a third shaft sunk to be kept specially as an outcast or ventilating shaft. In the area from which I come we have two sets of shafts. In what we call the Wawn Llwyd collieries, we have people working precisely similar seams, and we have two shafts, what we call the downcast shafts, which are for fresh air, that are winding coal, and the third shaft, called the ventilating shaft, which is kept clear for the purpose of ventilation. In the two collieries in which this explosion occurred there are only two shafts. The one is an upcast shaft, and the other is a downcast shaft, and they did start, some 10 or 12 years ago, to sink a third shaft. I believe that legislation should be introduced into
this House, compelling any company or any individual that is going into the earth for coal to sink two shafts with the idea of raising coal, and to go to the expense of sinking a third shaft for ventilation, in order to cool the mine in a proper way. The expense would be infinitesimal when you consider the life of the colliery. It is an initial cost, but the collieries in the area from which I come last about 100 years.
In the colliery to which I refer you get the one downcast and the upcast shaft. The fresh air goes down the one, and at the bottom of that shaft you take half the fresh air away, and send it in another direction to go down another small pit in that colliery, so that it may go to feed the other shaft. You have thus taken 50 per cent. of the current which might go down one colliery to ventilate the other, and you have not the air current going through the colliery that you should have. If a third shaft of sufficient dimensions were sunk, it would give the power of ventilation that is necessary. This is a question with which I think all of us on these benches sympathise and of which we understand the practicability and the utility, and I am bringing it before the Mines Department as being a question of infinite importance.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: Does the hon. Member mean two downcasts or two upcasts?

Mr. DAVIES: Two downcasts and one upcast shaft, of sufficient dimensions to take the air from the other two. That would keep a colliery as practically free from gas or danger as it is possible to keep it. I do not wish to charge any person with any responsibility for what has happened, but in a general sense I want to say this, that our men complain generally that the Inspectors of the Mines Department are more apt to be severe on them in the observance of the laws and regulations than they are on the employers. They go to the colliery face, and they call the men's attention to what we call the spragging of the coal at the working face, but at the same time, the men say, the Inspectors pass by places that are absolutely dangerous and that ought to be rectified, without paying attention to them, so far as they know. That is the expression of the men's opinion generally with regard to the Inspectors. I am not trying to say anything
to reflect on the Inspectors. I believe they have infinitely too much work to do, and we want to increase the Inspectorate, but I know the Chancellor of the Exchequer will at once say, "Where is the money coming from?" Where is the money coming from to send the soldiers to China? Whenever there is a war, money can be found. I am not talking about the merits or the demerits of sending soldiers to China. I am simply saying that in this country, somehow or other, whenever there is a war to be fought, whenever there is money needed in order to show our Imperial splendour, it matters not whether it is thousands or millions, the money can always be found, but whenever it is a social service, such as adding to the Inspectorate to see to the safety of the mines, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will come forward and say, "We have gone to the limit of our expenditure, and we cannot find the money to do anything of the kind."
To us, that is hypocritical and unreal. It shows that there is a lack of sympathy somewhere that ought not to exist, and that is why our men say what they do and why the incident happened to the Prime Minister the other day. It is all very well to come after the disaster has taken place. We want their sympathy beforehand, not after, and that is exactly the feeling of the men. I am trying to give it as clearly as I can, and if any hon. Member opposite will come down to my constituency and address a public meeting he will hear exactly what they think of him, and exactly what they say about the question, and they will leave no stone unturned in order to give a demonstration as to their conviction in regard to what the sympathy of the other side is worth. I hope the few remarks that I have made have not offended the susceptibilities of anyone. I should like this question to be outside party politics altogether, but the Mines Department, in order to put it outside of party politics, must give us a demonstration in the statement they will make to-night. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to show us an earnest of his desire by not abolishing the Mines Department, and the Minister of Mines must show us an earnest of his desire to prevent disasters of this kind taking place, by saying that he will do something in the nature of this Resolution and to put it into practical effect. That will give considerable satisfaction,
and we shall be the first in that event to take this question out of party politics altogether when we see that sincerity on the part of the Minister of Mines.

Mr. KIDD: Perhaps, as representing a Scottish mining county, I may be allowed to make a very brief contribution to the Debate. I do so in the hope that some representative among the many able mining representatives of Scotland on the other side of the House may offer some criticism of anything I may say. I was glad to hear from both sides of the House that in the matter of accidents in mines we can never get rid of the human factor. It has been my lot to appear in scores of mining cases. In many of the cases I have found the accident due to a failure of the human factor as represented by the management; in many other cases I have found that the accident has been due to the failure of the human factor as represented by the men, and I was therefore waiting to hear some specific suggestion as to what should be done in order to avoid accidents in mines, whether any suggestion could be made or any new system proposed which would tend to diminish the number of accidents. Any suggestion from any quarter of the House which in operation will tend to diminish accidents will, I am sure, receive the support of all Members irrespective of party.
I take the only possible comparison in the matter of accidents, namely the comparison made by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. The only real comparison I can make as to whether our present system is good or bad is to compare the accidents in this country with the number of accidents in other mining countries. I think the figures given by the hon. Member who submitted this Resolution so far from establishing the case he tried to make, proved exactly the opposite. I am speaking in the presence of many able miners' representatives from Scotland, who will no doubt correct me if my reasoning is wrong. The figures given by the hon. Member were to demonstrate the fact that the eight-hour day has increased the number of accidents. He discovered that in the first three months of 1926 there were 306 fatal accidents, while in the first three months of 1927 there were 324 fatal accidents. I take those figures and
I find that in a seven-hour day there are 306 fatal accidents, and in an eight-hour day—all other factors remaining the same—there are 324 fatal accidents. But that does not indicate any increase in accidents owing to an eight-hour day, because there would have to be 349 accidents if the eight-hour day is to be as bad as the seven-hour day. If any hon. Member considers this a fallacious argument, I hope he will point it out. [An HON. MEMBER: "We will if we get the opportunity."] The hon. Member should take the opportunity when it comes, and not interrupt. Therefore, the figures quoted by the hon. Member, so far from proving that the eight-hour day has occasioned more accidents, proves entirely the contrary.

Mr. TINKER: But there were 100,000 men less at work in the mines during the first three months of 1927.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. KIDD: I have not got the figures of the men at work. The hon. Member who moved the Motion gave the figures of 306 and 324, and argued that there were 18 more accidents in 1927 than there were in 1926; that you have an eight-hour day in operation in 1927 and a seven-hour day in operation in 1926, therefore, the eight-hour day is responsible for the increase. I say that the conclusion is all the other way; and what is more, no miners' representative will discount the fact that as these mines were idle for seven months last year we have all the more reason to be grateful that the accidents have been as few as they have. They will no doubt agree that no matter how careful the management may have been during that period of stoppage, it was inevitable that injury was occasioned to the mines such as would be conducive to accidents, and taking all these facts into consideration it is a matter of agreeable surprise that the accidents, so far from having increased during the first three months of this year, have decreased, and have not been much more serious.
I regret that the last speaker suggested that the inspectors of mines in this country show a partiality in favour of the management as against the men. I do not know with what inspectors he is acquainted, but I have never been in a case yet in which I have not found
the inspector a perfectly impartial person. I have opposed inspectors in many cases involving the men and in many cases involving the management, and in some cases involving both, and I have been struck as a lawyer with the exceptional perfection of our system of securing the safety of the miners. On the one hand, you have the manager, who has to pass a stiff examination, who is a man of character and ability, initiative and resource. Over the manager you have the inspector, representing public security, a perfectly independent person, a man whom I have always found—and I have had to cross-examine many inspectors who may perhaps have complained of my methods in Court—capable, independent, beyond all challenge in regard to his impartiality, and I should like to have heard the hon. Member give the name of the inspector who he considers has failed in this respect.

Mr. DAVIES: I do not think that in the speech I made I challenged the inspectors, beyond stating that our men were under the impression that they were much more rigid on them than on the employers.

Mr. KIDD: I am very glad to have that explanation, and I rather imagine that the hon. Member, in his official position as a miners' representative, knowing that this suspicion of the men's is thoroughly unwarranted, will do his best, day in and day out, to disabuse the minds of the men of such an unfair suspicion. I am glad to notice that in no quarter of the House is there any desire to suggest that in the matter of sympathy for the home which has suffered by a mining accident, or of anxiety for the man who is engaged in a most hazardous calling, there is any room to apportion that sympathy or that anxiety on a party basis. I take it we are all agreed that, irrespective of party, we are all sympathetic. We should never dream of trading for party purposes on the horrible lot of the widows and the fatherless children; we should loathe the idea of trading on that for party purposes. We are all at one in feeling sympathy for the stricken and feeling anxiety for those who are engaged down the mine, and that being so we can discuss this matter free from all party feeling and we can be fair to everyone concerned. We can examine the comparative
statistics of other countries with those of our own, and discover in those figures an extraordinary tribute to the quality of our management and to the quality of our inspectors, and make a little acknowledgment of the excellence of the mining system of this country.
I know that nothing is perfect, but mining from the engineering aspect is constantly improving—there are advances in engineering and in science. All the millions we are spending on education to-day are not intended to make prigs of our people; we expect to realise value for those millions in the services of science and of engineering, and no little of that service will be given to mines. We can all agree, too, to strive to secure such conditions as will make for the greatest possible security in mining. I would join the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Amendment in appealing to the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Resolution to realise that in order to give the country the feeling that here there is no party strife, nothing but an honest desire to do the best for mining, the proper thing to do is to adopt the Amendment.

Mr. PALING: The last speaker was rather upset because he was interrupted, but he issued a challenge and hence the interruption. When the Eight Hours Bill was under discussion last year various Government speakers, including Ministers, were terribly anxious to prove that the increase in hours would not bring about an increase in the number of fatal accidents. The figures given them proved conclusively, in spite of the wriggling of the Ministers, that an increase in hours must result in an increase in the number of fatal accidents. Figures have been read out to-night and there has not been any attempt to disprove them, although they have been "wangled" a bit. The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. R. Hudson) said that if we took into consideration that the stone-dusting Clause had been brought into operation, the 260 increase could be halved, at least; but even if we did that there would be an increase of 130. The stone-dusting Clause, however, does not operate in the way we tried to make out. While it is quite true that the stone-dusting Clause was not brought in until the introduction of
the Seven Hours Act, it remains a fact—when he was asked about it he did not dispute it—that in the great proportion of pits in this country stone dusting had been in operation for years upon years. The Act merely made compulsory something which had been adopted in the interests of safety in the big majority of mines years upon years previously. Therefore, the stone-dusting Clause of which so much has been made really does not operate in the manner which hon. Members opposite would have us believe.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd) said we had had figures for three months only given to us. There were 18 or 20 more cases in 1927 than in the corresponding three months of 1926, but say the hon. Member for Whitehaven and the hon. Member for Linlithgow with great unction, "Subtract the number of people who have been killed in the explosions and then you will find that actually fewer people were killed under the eight-hours' system than under the seven-hours' system." Why subtract them? They were killed, were they not? What is the difference between being killed in an explosion and by a fall of roof? It is a fatal accident just the same. When the hon. Member tries to argue that this is an abnormal occurrence, he must know that nearly every year's total of accidents includes the effects of some explosions. It may be that there are more one year than another, but there are always a number of people killed in explosions; and he cannot, in order to suit his particular argument, keep out of consideration the number of people who were unfortunately killed in the Cwm accident and in the Bilsthorpe colliery accident in Notting ham three weeks ago.

Mr. R. HUDSON: I definitely stated that the only justification for subtracting those figures was that here we are taking the figures for a very short period of time. If we were going to take the figures for the whole year it would be different. Here we are taking three months, and it cannot be said that every year similar accidents occur in this particular three months.

Mr. KIDD: I specifically refused to subtract those figures. I made the hon. Member a present of the whole job lot

Mr. PALING: The hon. Member in his argument said that if we subtracted the figures the number was less, and so said the hon. Member for Whitehaven. The hon. Member for Whitehaven was more concerned with the figures before the Eight Hours Act was imposed and before the stone-dusting Clause was passed. Those figures are not on a three-monthly basis. I make him a present of the three-monthly figures. We have the figures for many years to afford a direct comparison between what happened under the Eight Hours Act and under the Seven Hours Act. The hon. Member for Whitehaven was careful to point out that the number killed in 1924 was higher than it was in 1925. The number killed in 1924 was 1,218, and the number in 1925 was 1,159. Again hon. Members refuse to face the comparisons which really matter. The two hon. Members appear to forget the fact that over 100,000 men less were employed in the industry during these periods, and that the man shifts were, in proportion, much worse even than that. When the hon. Member for Whitehaven was talking about 1924–25 he forgot the much better comparison which is contained in the figures given in the Mines Inspector's Report.

Mr. R. HUDSON: I definitely quoted figures for the man shifts and hours worked. I said that in 1922 the actual number of fatal and non-fatal accidents was 66 and a decimal, and in 1925 it had fallen to 63. I used those very comparisons to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. PALING: I quite agree, but when giving the number actually killed in two years he used the years 1924 and 1925, and if he uses those years for the one purpose, or the one comparison, surely, he ought to use them also for the next comparison, but he did not do so. He used two different years. I propose, however, to use the same years. More men were killed, he said, in 1924 than in 1925, which proves according to him that we are making progress. But take the man shifts worked in 1924 and 1925. This is the Report:
The death rate per thousand persons employed above and below ground in 1925 was 1.02 per thousand and in 1924 .98 per thousand.
So the figures have gone up, in relation to the number employed. Take the man
shifts for the same two years. The death rate per 100,000 man shifts worked in 1925 was 0.40 as compared with 0.38 in 1924. So the figures have gone up in both cases. In future when the hon. Member for Whitehaven, who professes a desire to be fair in this matter, is comparing two years in one sense perhaps he will be good enough to carry on his comparison on the basis of the same two years when going further with his argument. So much for the question of the number killed. I would like to refer also to the question of the human element of which so much has been made during this Debate. A tremendous amount is made of the fact that miners are not always careful. There may be something in that. I will make hon. Members a present of whatever there is in it. As a matter of fact I will read a paragraph from the Inspector's Report which proves it. This is in regard to haulage accidents:
Many accidents could have been prevented. For example, 29 persons were killed while illegally riding on tubs or sets of tubs, and 10 when illegally travelling on haulage roads; 27 were fatally injured, either because proper stop blocks were not provided "—
that is due to the management.
or those provided were not used"—
that is due to the men.
and 10 for the want of, or non-use of, back stays.
I make a present to hon. Members of that. But listen to what follows:
In the northern division five persons when putting or driving were killed by being caught between tubs and the roof or the roof supports. Accidents of this character occur every year. They are due to the conditions under which pitters and drivers work under present methods the clearance between the tops of tubs and the roofs, or roof supports being only three or four inches or even less.
It is a question of the expense of making decent roads on which haulage can take place properly. Again in the same Report we find:
In the Cardiff and Newport Division there are more deaths due to injuries received when re-railing derailed trams than from any other cause in connection with haulage.
This is what the Inspector suggests:
This would appear to point to more care being necessary to provide good railways, to keep them clear of lumps of coal and debris and to see that the trams themselves are maintained in good running condition.
Again the economic question—the question of finance—arises, and that is a question devolving upon the management alone. The Inspector also says:
Many haulage accidents are the result of the keenness of the workers, and such keenness which means taking a chance' will exist for all time.
I would like hon. Members to keep that in mind when they are talking about the workers' "ca'canny" policy. The Inspector of Mines himself states that workers sometimes do get killed because of their keenness, and he admits that such keenness must exist for all time. That is a good thing, not only for the men themselves, but particularly for the profits of the coalowners.
The result of the chance taken depends very much upon the conditions of the road. In a road of good size there is freedom to move about, whereas in cramped conditions the risk is magnified many times.
Again it is a question of finance. The question of the human element was also brought into the matter of shaft accidents mentioned by the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Clarry). I have looked through the Inspector's report, and I cannot see the factor of the human element mentioned in connection with the shaft accidents occurring in 1925. I would ask the Secretary for Mines if the number of shaft accidents is more than it ought to be. He has been asked time after time daring the years that I have been a Member of this House, and he has been Secretary for Mines most of the time, what is being done with the number of inventions that are being sent up to the Mines Office month after month and year after year, purporting to be inventions which would prevent many overwinding accidents. We have not been able to get much of an answer. Nearly all the people who have sent in the inventions are absolutely dissatisfied with the treatment they have received from the Mines Department. Last year I asked the Secretary for Mines a question in regard to overwinding accidents. I asked how many collieries in this country had electrically-driven winding apparatus and how many had steam-driven winding apparatus. I also asked for particulars of similar apparatus in Germany. An answer was given. It was admitted that in Germany, where there is a far bigger proportion of winding
engines driven by electricity than in this country, the number of accidents from overwinding is very much less than it is here. I believe that the Secretary for Mines admits that. What is being done by the Department to push forward the idea of electrical winding engines?
The question of nystagmus was mentioned by one hon. Member, and appalling figures were given of the increasing number of cases, year after year. What has been done in this matter? I find from the Inspector's Report, on page 47, reference to the question of lamps. The Secretary for Mines must know from his experience at the Mines Department that at the pits where electric lamps have been adopted the illumination is much better than is obtained by the ordinary flame safety lamp. I think that is admitted. Does not the Secretary for Mines admit it? It is generally admitted by everybody who knows anything about it. It is also admitted by most of the experts, who know anything about nystagmus, that most of the nystagmus cases are caused by lack of illumination, and the evidence bears that out. It will be found from the Report that, after nearly 14 or 15 years' experience of electric lamps, although experience has brought them up to a state of perfection and safety which the ordinary flame safety can never achieve, there are in use 580,000 ordinary flame safety lamps, as against only 366,000 electric lamps.
If the Secretary for Mines wishes to rid the mining community of the dread disease of nystagmus, one of the best ways of securing that desirable end is by getting pits to adopt the electric lamp as against the old flame safety lamp. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as we know that the main reason for not adopting the electric lamp is one of expense, because it happens to be rather expensive to put in the first installation. I suggest, in face of the evidence contained in the Inspectors Report for 1925, that the Motion which has been moved to-night is justified, and, that it can be proved from the points of view which have been mentioned, and a dozen others that could be mentioned, that the Mines Department has not followed up these things. The hon. Member for White-haven quoted the Industrial Fatigue Research Board and the Medical Research
Council. These are good bodies, but hardly a single suggestion which they have made have been put into operation, either by legislation, administration, or regulation. Under the circumstances, I submit that the Motion is justified, and I hope that the House, if it has any concern for the lives and the welfare of the miners, will support us in carrying the Resolution.

Mr. STEPHEN WALSH: I think everyone must admit the great interest and also the great importance of the Debate which has followed the putting down of the Resolution that stands in the names of my hon. Friends. It seems to me impossible for any Member of the House to disagree with the terms of the Resolution. What is the use, really, of going into these decimal figures, .01 or .004 reduction, when it is a matter of common knowledge that every year in the mines at least one out of every six is injured more or less seriously? Roughly, 200,000 people are injured every year, or one in six, by accidents necessitating absence from work for a week or more, many of them for months and years. With every year that goes over our heads, with mathematical precision, more than 1,000 are killed, and then hon. Members begin with mathematical care, working out in terms of a decade, how much by 000 the death rate or accident rate has fallen. It is 17 years since the Coal Mines (Regulation) Act was passed, and many of us who were on the Committee which considered that Act, protested against bringing a great potential danger into the mine. We believed that as much coal could be obtained by the methods then existing as this country and all the foreign countries to which we exported coal required. We raised in 1910 well on towards 300,000,000 tons of coal. In 1913, the largest amount of coal up to that time was raised; speaking entirely from memory, I think about 287,000,000 tons. We protested against an additional danger being brought into the mines, knowing as we did, having worked down in the mines, exactly what we were talking about, and the kind of danger that we ourselves had to face.
We protested against the use of electricity. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Smillie) sat
in the Committee room for a very long time, and will remember the effect upon us. We were backed up in that decision by a very famous mine inspector, a very competent man, who foresaw the danger and the extreme difficulty of guarding against that kind of accident.
Electricity is like lightning. There are conditions under which it is impossible to control it, and when it is released its effects are immeasurable. I have been noticing these last few weeks the Inspectors' Reports. Of course every man in this House and outside of it feels a common human sympathy when accidents occur. There is no lack of sympathy. Take the recent disaster in Yorkshire, where three lives were lost and many men were seriously injured. There was a cable there uncovered for a great length, and it ultimately fused with the consequences that we know. Against that kind of thing the Inspectors are constantly warning the Department in their Reports. These are not matters for which the workmen are responsible. Listen to the words in the Report of Mr. Charlton, the Inspector of the Swansea Division in 1924. He says:
It is a matter of astonishment to me to find how indifferent many managers and electricians are to the requirements of the general regalations governing the use of electricity. Apparatus quite unsuitable to the circumstances of use is often installed, while the workmanship is at times most slipshod, not always because the electrician is inefficient but sometimes because he has far too much to do.'
In a South Yorkshire colliery, Darton Main, on the East face in the new hard seam, on the 30th of May, 1925, this is what happened:
Five workmen were injured by burning as a result of an accumulation of gas being ignited at a three-phase, 430-volt, electrically-driven, coal-cutting machine.
And the Inspector goes on to say:
Access could not be gained to the working face after the explosion, as a new airway had not been completed and the old one was closed by a fall at the outbye edge of which gas was found. It is very difficult to appreciate why an electrically-driven machine should have been allowed to work under such conditions. There was virtually a contravention of Section 29 of the Coal Mines Act.
I do not know whether any prosecutions took place. The quotation continues:
The originating point of the explosion is not in doubt. Examination shows that there had been arcing in the connector box, which in the opinion of Mr. J. A. B. Horsley,
Electrical Inspector of Mines, was sufficient to ignite an inflammable mixture of gas and air. Had the dust raised by the explosion been of a nature to propagate an explosion the result would have been very serious.
The Chief Inspector goes on to state that:
Three explosions during the year (1925) were due to misuse of electrically-driven. coal-cutting machines. That at the Wallsend Edward Colliery on 9th August caused the loss of five lives and injury to 28 others. The causes and circumstances attending it are dealt with by the Divisional Inspector (Mr. T. G. Davies) and by the Electrical Inspector (Mr. J. A. B. Horsley) in their reports, and I wish to emphasise the remark made by Mr. Davies, namely, 'It is difficult to understand how longwall workings could drift into the state shown by a glance at plate 2, if proper supervision had been exercised by the management.' There was a complete absence of method, and failure to appreciate the broad lines upon which mining by machines must proceed, operations having been allowed to take a haphazard course. After the explosion the machines were withdrawn from the scene. The machines were not at fault; it was the lack of management and organisation which in due course resulted in the accident.
Of course there were only five lives lost there, but these cases have been multiplied time after time during the last few years by 10, and accidents happen, the cause of which is not easily traced, but which, in the opinion of many of us, are directly traceable to electricity. Consequently, we say it is time when either a new inquiry should be set up of a competent character or a new code of legislation should be established to deal with the entirely new conditions which have arisen since 1911. We have got electrically driven coal cutters, electrical conveyances, electrical signalling and a thousand and one other sources of danger that were hardly in existence 17 years ago, and it is time legislation should be enacted to reduce this kind of accident and to provide for a more efficient administration. A good deal of this information is already in the possession of the Department. It is not a matter of the inspectors not having drawn attention to these dangers, because they have reported continuously in 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924 and 1925 that this kind of danger has continually been present, showing faulty and defective management of the mines. All this is well within the knowledge of the Mines Department, and has been during all those years. Therefore, it is most desirable that a new Act of Parliament
should be passed which should have as its special object the limiting of this particular kind of injury and accidents in the mines.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): The Debate we have had on this subject was started in two very temperate speeches from two hon. Members representing my own County of Yorkshire, upon which I want to congratulate them. Both of them apologised to the House in case they spoke strongly, but that was quite unnecessary, because it is evident they were speaking with great feeling upon a subject which they thoroughly understood, and their strong remarks were perfectly justified. I regret that in the Motion which has been put down that spirit is not sufficiently shown. This may be due to defective drafting, and I should like to give them the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps they have not drafted their own Resolution. It is unfortunate that this House has not had an earlier opportunity of expressing the regret which I am sure is shared by every hon. Member at the high rate of accidents in mines, and I am sure every hon. Member is most anxious to do his utmost to try and reduce that rate. When that is coupled with the assertion that the Government have failed to carry out their pledges—and I may say that in this Debate very few details have been given of the pledges that are referred to, and very little foundation for the statement in the Resolution—when that is put at the end of the Resolution, it is obvious that the Government cannot advise their supporters to allow it to pass, and that an Amendment must be moved to put the matter on a better basis. The Amendment which has been moved does, I think, express the feeling of the vast majority of the House. We all regret the prevalence of accidents; we are all glad that they are not worse than they are; we are all anxious to see the state of affairs with regard to accidents improved. That, I am sure, is the combined sense of the House, and I only wish it had been possible for the hon. Gentlemen who moved this Motion to have drafted it in a form of that kind.
I would ask, what are the pledges which are alluded to? We have been told repeatedly that there has been no new legislation; but, as has been said by more than one speaker in this Debate, legislation
alone is of no use. Legislation can do a certain amount, but in my belief we have ample legislation. It is a question of administration; you can do far more by regulation; and, in the few minutes that I have left, I hope the House will allow me to explain why it is that I am prepared to say that the Mines Department has been carrying out in the most thorough manner, by inquiry, by research, by regulations, and by inspection, the duties which have been laid upon it. The House will not imagine for a moment that I am taking any credit for myself; but, when I hear speaker after speaker on the other side, without, perhaps, a full knowledge of the working of the Mines Department, suggest that there has been slacking, that officials have not done their duty, I feel bound to stand up for as devoted, loyal and hard-working a body of men as I have ever come across in the whole of my life. I take no sort of credit for that; I have no share in it myself at all; I am merely the mouthpiece of the Department in this House, and I think it is fair to say that.
The suggestion was made that the suggested reorganisation of Ministries and so on might involve decreased efficiency in safeguarding the health and safety and conditions under which miners work. I can quite safely say, on he half of the Government, that that will be far too high a price to pay for any economy. In making any economy, the House may rest perfectly assured that the full interests of the health and safety of those who work in our mines will be considered, and that no rearrangement will be allowed to interfere with that most necessary duty. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) spoke with some scorn about people juggling with figures. I agree that far too much juggling of figures has taken place from his side. I have reason to believe that almost the main basis of this Debate is answers which have been given by me to questions at various times as to the rate of accidents occurring, and on conclusions that have been drawn from those answers. I am not going to be drawn into juggling with figures, because I think it is waste of time. I say perfectly genuinely and sincerely that you cannot possibly get any really valuable deduction from periods such as these; you can
only get it by considering wider periods of time than many of those which have been mentioned in this Debate.
I should like to show the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling) how unwise it is to juggle with figures. When he asked me a question about the rates of accidents at various periods and asked for a period both before and after the eight-hour day, involving a period when the average working hours were nine, then a period in which they were eight, and then a period in which they were seven, the reply he got was that the average of the men killed when the period of nine hours was being worked was conisiderably lower than the period that followed with eight hours. He will also realise that one of the principal reasons for that was that during that period of eight hours there was a large number of very serious explosions. It was a very unfortunate period and three explosions alone, involving about 1,000 deaths, occurred during that period. When he said stone dust had nothing to do with it, I should like to remind him that in the eight-hour period the average was 150 deaths due to coal dust explosions. In the seven-hour period, after regulations had been enforced on the whole mining community, instead of 150 per annum the number dropped to 20.
A comparison has been made with foreign countries. There, again, I do not want to make too much of it. I do not want to say that because we are in a far better position than any other country, except perhaps France, we ought to be satisfied. I fully agree that we must do everything we can but at the same time do net let us paint the picture too black. It is a comfort to remember that with all the conditions we are so often told about we are still ahead of all the countries in the world except perhaps France. Equally I should like to remind the House, before I come to the actual work of the Department, that if you go through periods of years you will find that the accident and death rate is slowly but steadily decreasing. It is some comfort to realise that that process is still going on and, whatever hon. Members may feel about the eight-hour question, it is very unfair to choose a period of three months in one year and a period of three months in another year in which there has been no serious explosion, and say we are
comparing like with like. Hon. Members had better try to face facts than to juggle with figures. Figures are very dangerous. Of course it is true that if men are employed rather longer in a risky occupation there is more risk.

Mr. PALING: You would not admit that last year.

Colonel LANE FOX: How can anyone dispute it? But to base all the calculations, which hon. Members do base on that, is another matter. But I will not spend any more time on figures, because I have something much more important to say in the short time that remains. Some hon. Gentlemen have alluded to the growing importance of what may be called the water danger, which has occupied so great a place in the unfortunate history of accidents during recent years. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Grundy) asked with scorn, "What is the Department doing about it?" It is quite true there was a very serious accident at the Scotswood Pit last year, and there have been others as well. It is obvious that this is a danger which has come to stay, because the more old workings there are the greater chance there is of the accumulation of water and the greater risk there is from that cause. We have two things to do; first of all, to try to give as much information as we can to those working the pits in order to enable them to avoid this danger, and, secondly, to set about seeing whether the existing methods of combating the danger are sufficient or can be improved. We have set up a Water Dangers Committee, which has been travelling round the country and collecting the fullest information from all sources. I hope the Committee will shortly report; indeed, their report is in draft.
At the same time we have set up a catalogue of plans to which I alluded on the last occasion when this subject was discussed. That catalogue is very nearly completed. It has been a vast work and the Department owes great thanks to all the various members of the community who have helped to produce old plans, particularly the plans of mines abandoned before 1872, for it was only after 1872 that it became compulsory that they should be handed in. We have now collected them to the number of 12,000 and there are 12,000 others, or thereabouts, which have been
examined and their contents recorded. We are still getting further information, so that the catalogue is not yet complete. As soon as it is, we shall publish it, but in the meanwhile all the information we have got is available to anyone who chooses to apply to the Mines Department. If anyone thinks we have got information about old workings in the neighbourhood of their pit and will apply to us, we shall be able to tell them all we can on the matter. We cannot legislate in a hurry and perhaps make a mistake without investigating. This thing has got to be carefully approached and those hon. Members who tell us that the cost does not matter must remember that you cannot brush aside economic laws. The future of the mining industry does depend very largely on the extent to which the cost of the colliery pits can be reduced. There is no use contending that this is not the case.
Then there is a Safety in Mines Research Board which, as the House knows, is financed by the welfare fund, but which is controlled by and works hand-in-hand with the Mines Department and under their supervision. On the other hand, when shifts are shortened there is a tendency to hurry the work, and more hurried work always tends to an increase in accidents. This Committee has a number of daughter committees. We have one Committee on the Support of Workings Underground which is going round the country and dealing with the timber question. They have already reported as regards South Wales and Scotland and the Eastern area and they are going over the whole of the country and eventually will report on every coalfield in the country.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: Will these reports be available?

Colonel LANE FOX: I think so, but if the hon. Member will put down a question, I will find out. I do not see why they should not be, and as far as I know they are. Then we have a Committee dealing with the question of ventilation, the explosives question and so on, and with the very important question of wire ropes and various questions connected with that, and also dealing with the question of spontaneous combustion.
I will now deal briefly with the question of research. A new experimental
station has just been set up at Buxton which I hope will be a very great improvement on the former experimental station. The new station will be much more handy to get to, and will be equipped in a more up-to-date fashion, and is already carrying on very valuable experimental work. I hope it will be officially opened some time in the month of June, and that its work will be of enormous value to the mining community. At the present moment they are already carrying out coal dust experiments under various conditions, fire-damp explosions, and testing mining explosives, and they have got a chamber able to reproduce, as far as they can, the character of a gob fire so as to be able to test the various conditions that arise in connection with gob fires. In addition, there is a considerable amount of laboratory work being carried out. The main laboratory work is at present being carried on, and will be continued, in Sheffield. The questions of spontaneous combustion and the use of electricity are not being lost sight of.
I would say to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walsh), who preceded me, that I should be surprised to learn that it is really the policy of the Labour party and of the Miners' Federation to discourage the use of electricity in mines. By all means make the use of electricity safer. By all means make examinations to see how it can be more safely used, but to talk about conveyors and the recent development that electricity has brought into the mines as being a danger that ought to be avoided is, I am sure, not the considered judgment, and certainly will not be the considered judgment, of either the Miners' Federation or the Labour party. One of the complaints that the Miners' Federation made before the Royal Commission was this, that we were behind the times as

compared with other countries in not having sufficient electrical equipment in our mines. I leave the right hon. Gentleman to settle that difference of opinion, as well as many others, with the Miners' Federation.

I have not time to deal with the question of the various Regulations as to shot firing, stone testing, rescue work, and as to various Regulations which have been passed and brought into effect during recent years. The hon. Gentlemen who asked me what has been done have only to look at the various Regulatons that have been passed and the various investigations that have been made and the action taken upon them When they ask what can be done about the unfortunate accident at Wharncliffe. I would remind them that the inquest has not yet been completed. You cannot send for and hang anybody until there has been an inquiry into the whole case. The whole thing is being carefully gone into, and most careful inquiries are being made. The matter will be most seriously and thoroughly dealt with. We have by no means heard the last of that unfortunate accident. Hon. Gentlemen have brought, as far as I have heard them, no definite accusations against the Mines Department which could really prove that the Department has not carried out Regulations, or that it has not brought them into effect where necessary. I could have said a good deal more on this subject—it is a very large and very attractive one—but, at any rate, I thank hon. Gentlemen for the general tone of the Debate. I only wish they had not made it necessary to move an Amendment to their Resolution.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 114; Noes, 201.

Division No. 98.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Charleton, H. C.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Clowes, S.
Greenall, T.


Ammon, Charles George
Compton, Joseph
Grenfell, D. R.(Glamorgan)


Baker, Walter
Connolly, M.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Dalton, Hugh
Groves, T.


Barnes, A.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, T. W.


Batey, Joseph
Day, Colonel Harry
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Duncan, C.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)


Bromfield, William
Dunnico, H.
Hardie, George D.


Bromley, J.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Harney, E. A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Fenby, T. D.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Hayday, Arthur


Buchanan, G.
Gibbins, Joseph
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Cape, Thomas
Gillett, George M.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Hirst, G. H.
Paling, W.
Sullivan, J.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Sutton, J. E.


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Taylor, R. A.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Potts, John S.
Tinker, John Joseph


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Purcell, A. A.
Townend, A. E.


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Varley, Frank B.


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Riley, Ben
Viant, S. P.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Ritson, J.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W.Bromwich)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Kelly, W. T.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Kennedy, T.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sexton, James
Webb, Rt. Hon Sidney


Kirkwood, D
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wellock, Wilfred


Lansbury, George
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Westwood, J.


Lawrence, Susan
Sitch, Charles H.
Whiteley, W.


Lawson, John James
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lee, F.
Smillie, Robert
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Lowth, T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lunn, William
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Mackinder, W.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


MacLaren, Andrew
Snell, Harry
Windsor, Walter


March, S.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wright, W.


Montague, Frederick
Stephen, Campbell
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Murnin, H.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)



Palln, John Henry
Strauss, E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Hayes.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fermoy, Lord
Maclntyre, Ian


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Flelden, E. B.
McLean, Major A.


Albery, Irving James
Finburgh, S.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Ford, Sir P. J.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Mac Robert, Alexander M.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Apsley, Lord
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Gates, Percy
Margesson, Captain D.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Marriott, Sir J. A. R


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Goff, Sir Park
Merriman, F. B.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Gower, Sir Robert
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Mcnsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Betterton, Henry B.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grotrian, H. Brent
Murchison, Sir Kenneth


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph


Briscoe, Richard George
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Brocklabank, C. E. R.
Hanbury, C.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hartington, Marquess of
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Hawke, John Anthony
Pennefather, Sir John


Bullock, Captain M.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Penny, Frederick George


Burman, J. B.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Perring, Sir William George


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Herbert, S.(York,N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Campbell, E. T.
Hills, Major John Waller
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hilton, Cecil
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Chapman, Sir S.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Christie, J. A.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Preston, William


Clayton, G. C.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Radford, E. A.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Ralne, W.


Cope, Major William
Hume, Sir G. H.
Ramsden, E.


Couper, J. B.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Jephcott, A. R.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Galnsbro)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cunilffe, Sir Herbert
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Roberts E. H. G. (Flint)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir clement
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Lamb, J. Q.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Ropner, Major L.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lister, Cunllffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Salmon, Major I.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Loder, J. de V.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney).


Duckworth, John
Looker, Herbert William
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


England, Colonel A.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Shepperson, E. W.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Lumley, L. R.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Skelton, A. N.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
McDonneil, Colonel Hon. Angus
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)




Smithers Waldron
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Tinne, J. A.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Sprot, Sir Alexander
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wiggins, William Martin


Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden,E.)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Stanley, Lord (Fyide)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Waddington, R.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Wolmer, Viscount


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Ward. Lt.-Col.A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Womersley, W. J.


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Warrender, Sir Victor
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Tasker, R. Inlgo.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wragg, Herbert


Templeton, W. P.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)



Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Watts, Dr. T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Wells, S. R.
Mr. R. S. Hudson and Mr. Clarry.


Question put, and agreed to.

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

Mr. WESTWOOD rose—

It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

EMPLOYMENT OF DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

WAYS AND MEANS.

REPORT [11TH APRIL].

Postponed Proceeding on Consideration of Resolutions resumed.

Ordered, That consideration of the remaining Resolutions be now adjourned. —[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Eleventh and subsequent Resolutions to be considered To-morrow.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

Ordered, That Captain Craig be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts.

Ordered, That Sir Malcolm Macnaghten be added to the Committee.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

EVICTIONS, DURHAM.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Mr. WHITELEY: I desire to draw the attention of the Secretary for Mines to a state of affairs in Durham County, the like of which we have not seen for 50 years. At the present time evictions of
miners are going on in many parts of Durham County, their wives, children and furniture being put on to the street, although there is no possibility of alternative accommodation being secured. At South Garesfield Colliery there are a number of men who are to be evicted on 1st May, and that is one of the reasons why we desire to raise the matter to-night. I have had information that those men have made every effort to secure alternative accommodation, and up to the moment they have failed. Some of those men have occupied those colliery houses for over 30 years, have been employed at the colliery for over 30 years; now they have been served with eviction orders which are to take effect on 1st May. At Greenside Colliery there is a similar state of affairs. A large number of men there are to be evicted a very short time. We are anxious that the Secretary for Mines shall get into touch with the coalowners of Durham to see that these orders are not put into operation as they have been in some cases which my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) will bring to the attention of the House when I have finished.
I want the House to realise that in Durham in 1879 the umpire fixed the basic rate of wages, after hearing both sides, at 5s. 2d., but owing to the fact that the men occupied colliery houses it was reduced to 4s. 2d. The rate fixed was 5s. 2d., but those who occupied colliery houses were to receive 4s. 2d. That is to say, adult workers were paying a day for the houses they were occupying on the actual evidence that was brought before the umpire. In some cases men have actually paid, during these 30 years, £469 10s. in rent, and yet many people believe that miners have free houses and free coal. When one goes back to the 1879 award one finds that is not the case. Where there are three or four adult workers in the house you have people paying on the average about £704 in
rent. When there comes a period of depression like the present, these people are turned out on to the road, not because the houses are really wanted. These men could be employed were it not for the fact that the colliery management is bringing in strangers to do their work and is evicting them in order that strangers may occupy the houses.
The Secretary for Mines and the Government as a whole ought to see that what they have been preaching for so long—namely, harmonious co-operation—is begun by the coalowners. The coal-owners should be told to practise what they have been preaching. They are always telling us that the workers are raising difficulties. These evictions are causing more unrest in Durham at present than anything else I know. People who have served the colliery companies for many years are being moved out on to the streets. That is their only recompense, and I hope the Secretary for Mines will use his influence between now and the end of the week to have these evictions prevented.

Mr. BATEY: I desire to bring before the House two evictions of miners' families which took place last Wednesday at South Garesfield Colliery in the County of Durham. This belongs to Messrs. Pease Partners, a very large coal company. One of the men concerned is 62 years of age, and he was turned out with his wife and three adult sons. This man has worked for this colliery for almost 50 years. Last Wednesday the police took possession of the house, put the furniture into the street, and locked the family out. The other case is one of a man who has worked at the same colliery for 23 years. Last Wednesday his adult son, who is working at the colliery was actually at the pit when the furniture was carried out into the street. There was no house to which they could go, and the local co-operative society was good enough to allow them to store the furniture. The people themselves had to shelter with kindly neighbours. As my colleague has said, it is a number of years since we had evictions in Durham. There have been years of peace, as far as evictions are concerned, but now the practice is breaking out like an epidemic. The owners are using the present bad times to turn these men out of
the houses. The men are being turned out of houses for which they have paid, because these are old colliery houses. The men are simply waiting to be restarted at the colliery, but they are paying the penalty of being refused work and of being evicted because they are good trade unionists and were loyal to the Miners' Federation during the dispute. They are refused work; strangers have been brought to the colliery and started; and now they are suffering the further penalty of being turned out of their houses, and they have no other places to go to. I suggest to the Secretary for Mines that this is a barbarous practice. We thought that it had been completely abolished. It must be said to the credit of the coalowners in Durham that during the dispute of last year they never attempted to turn a man out of his house, and during the dispute in 1921 they never attempted to turn a man out of his house; but now they are adopting this barbarous practice, and turning the men out of their houses, and abusing the local police by getting them to go into houses, carry out the furniture and put it into the street.
I suggest to the Secretary for Mines that he should use his influence with the colliery companies, with a view to getting peace in the industry, and persuade them to stop this barbarous practice. Not only have we to complain of the cases where the men have been turned out, but there are notices of further evictions which are to take place. No one can tell what will happen in these colliery villages if this practice is to continue. It is a real reflection upon a great wealthy colliery company, like Messrs. Pease and Partners. Once they had a good name. They were fair employers, who treated their work-people as fairly as did any other colliery company. Now they are soiling their good name by carrying out such a practice. We believe that these coal-owners are carrying out these practices because they think that they have the Government behind them. When this Government are so keen upon protecting blacklegs, we maintain that they ought to protect good trade unionists, and if the men cannot get work, at least the Secretary for Mines should try to bring pressure upon this particular colliery company and other colliery companies to allow the men to remain in their houses until such time as they can be restarted.

Colonel LANE FOX: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) should have thought it necessary in connection with this matter to use such a term as "blacklegs." I think we can discuss the question with less prejudice if terms like that are left out. I can only give the information which I have received by telephone this morning. I am informed that so far only three evictions have taken place and that no general scheme of evictions has taken place. The point is that there are fewer men being employed now than there were before the stoppage, for various reasons. Some men are leaving their employment. The colliery houses are, very naturally, from the point of view of the colliery, required for those men who have work in the colliery.
Those who are not now working in the colliery are, according to my account, having their houses free of rent, and I admit—that is the point of view that is put to me—if they are receiving their houses free of rent and if on the other hand the colliery company are paying rent allowances, as they allege, to these men who have not got free houses, because they have to live in other houses, and at the same time if the colliery company have to pay rates and repairs in respect of the houses in which unemployed men are living rent free, then it would seem that the greatest consideration, according to my information, was given, the men who had been evicted having received notice from the company more than two months ago. The hon. Member said there is no alternative accommodation. The men on whom notices have been served have been given the names and addresses of the workmen to whom the colliery houses had been allocated. That is my information.

Mr. BATEY: In one of the cases the co-operative society has stored the furniture, and the people are living with their neighbours. I can give the right hon. Gentleman the name.

Mr. LAWSON: They cannot take these houses because men are coming long distances to the collieries.

Colonel LANE FOX: The hon. Member must see that that is not according to the statement I have received, and I can act only on the information that has reached me.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman assume that a man can get another house?

Colonel LANE FOX: Again, that is the information that comes to me. Arrangements are being made by which these men will be told the houses which the other men are vacating. As regards strangers being brought in from a distance to do their work, if it be the fact that these men are receiving rent allowance, it does not seem as though they are entire strangers. If there are fewer men employed in the collieries, it seems that inevitable colliery houses should be occupied by these men. That it should be done with the least inconvenience to people I fully agree, but I fear it is inevitable there must be some modification, some readjustment. If it is the fact that these owners are having to pay rent allowances and at the same time to pay rates for and do the repairs of the houses in question, it is obvious that this is an uneconomic position with which we should have no power to interfere.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: There is quite another side to that sort of thing. I know for a positive fact that men who have lost their employment have gone to owners of houses, and the owners have said that it is absolutely impossible to make arrangements for them to have the houses. The only arrangement is to ask the owners to agree to allow these people to remain in the colliery houses they occupy until other houses can be found for them.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes after Eleven o'Clock.